Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: ByzCat3000 on September 08, 2020, 04:24:40 PM
-
I may have asked this before, its a question i have periodically, but I'm gonna raise this again.
if you're a Sede, what exactly prevents the Sedevacantist bishops from holding a conclave and electing a pope?
I mean pretty much every trad and especially every sede already agrees with some principle of "the normal rules don't apply during a crisis situation." So why would it be that the CHurch couldn't produce for itself a pope?
Even with Sedeprivationism, would having a non Catholic (under the sede paradigm) with a valid election to the pontificate that they couldn't receive really inhibit the Church from producing for itself a new pope?
Like hypothetically, if the College of Cardinals somehow elected a Protestant to the papacy in the 1500s, OK that would be invalid, they could then elect another pope. They wouldn't have to wait till the Protestant converted or died, right?
What am I missing here? 'cause where I'm sitting right now, I understand (though don't agree with) the sede diagnosis, but they seem to write themselves into a corner on the solution.
-
The issue of authority. If two different sede conclaves meet to elect popes, whose to say which, if either, was valid? I'm sure they'd find plenty of reasons to doubt the other's conclave. In the end, as with the Great Western Schism, creating new papal claimants just creates more confusion and uncertainty.
-
The issue of authority. If two different sede conclaves meet to elect popes, whose to say which, if either, was valid? I'm sure they'd find plenty of reasons to doubt the other's conclave. In the end, as with the Great Western Schism, creating new papal claimants just creates more confusion and uncertainty.
Well the Great Western Schism is different. We knew with certainty *one* of those three guys are pope. Maybe not which one. But we know one of them is. So you can't elect a pope.
They need to have ONE Sede conclave, elect somebody pope, if needed conditionally consecrate them in such a way that everyone agrees this person is a bishop, and then, presumably given their ultramontanism, this pope could authoritatively settle the issues between the different sede "clans."
I really don't see any good *excuse* for them not to do this besides "we don't want to" or there really just is a weak Pope on Peter's Chair right now which would inhibit electing someone *else* the pope.
-
Well, one obstacle is that he would have to be the Bishop of Rome.
I’m not sure how a Bishop Sanborn (or whoever) would go about satisfying that requirement, while having no connection to Rome (unless maybe the Roman clergy somehow miraculously accepted him as such?).
On the other hand, it is a bit more plausible with someone like Vigano: He’s known by them, and if he started getting traction because of disgust with Francis...?
Such a turn of events would be tantamount to Francis losing universal peaceful acceptance, in which case, does the door open a crack?
Of course, other things would have to happen as well: The bishops would need to declare the fact of Francis’s heresies, and then a second declaration that in light of this, God had deposed him. Otherwise the door would be open to competing claimants, setting the stage for another GWS.
Difficult to imagine such scenarios playing out today, with the entire hierarchy awash in modernism, yet precisely because of that, the restoration of the Church will have to be miraculous whenever God sees fit.
And who saw Vigano coming three years ago??
-
Well, one obstacle is that he would have to be the Bishop of Rome.
I’m not sure how a Bishop Sanborn (or whoever) would go about satisfying that requirement, while having no connection to Rome (unless maybe the Roman clergy somehow miraculously accepted him as such?).
On the other hand, it is a bit more plausible with someone like Vigano: He’s known by them, and if he started getting traction because of disgust with Francis...?
Such a turn of events would be tantamount to Francis losing universal peaceful acceptance, in which case, does the door open a crack?
Of course, other things would have to happen as well: The bishops would need to declare the fact of Francis’s heresies, and then a second declaration that in light of this, God had deposed him. Otherwise the door would be open to competing claimants, setting the stage for another GWS.
Difficult to imagine such scenarios playing out today, with the entire hierarchy awash in modernism, yet precisely because of that, the restoration of the Church will have to be miraculous whenever God sees fit.
And who saw Vigano coming three years ago??
Is it an absolute requirement that the Pope be a Bishop of Rome?
And would he have to have a "Preexisting" connection to the diocese?
I know there were a couple of "competing papal claimants" in history, but I forget if the true Pope was always in Rome or not.
At any rate I guess my issue is, were at 62 years and counting now (per sedes) so I don't see how the sede argument seems to be "well Francis isn't the Pope, but also, the True Church has no way of giving itself a pope."
I guess the issue is further complicated if you take an SSPV style opinionism, in which case, most True Catholics do think Francis is the Pope, even if some of the SSPV priests think he isn't. That makes things even more complex and weird.
-
Is it an absolute requirement that the Pope be a Bishop of Rome?
And would he have to have a "Preexisting" connection to the diocese?
I know there were a couple of "competing papal claimants" in history, but I forget if the true Pope was always in Rome or not.
At any rate I guess my issue is, were at 62 years and counting now (per sedes) so I don't see how the sede argument seems to be "well Francis isn't the Pope, but also, the True Church has no way of giving itself a pope."
I guess the issue is further complicated if you take an SSPV style opinionism, in which case, most True Catholics do think Francis is the Pope, even if some of the SSPV priests think he isn't. That makes things even more complex and weird.
All good questions, and I don't have a single answer to any of them.
-
Well the Great Western Schism is different. We knew with certainty *one* of those three guys are pope. Maybe not which one. But we know one of them is.
Not necessarily. That was cleared up later by the Church, of course, but it would have been theoretically possible that none of them had been legitimate ... for different reasons. Evidently the group that elected the first anti-Pope felt that the original election had been illegitimate.
-
Not necessarily. That was cleared up later by the Church, of course, but it would have been theoretically possible that none of them had been legitimate ... for different reasons. Evidently the group that elected the first anti-Pope felt that the original election had been illegitimate.
OK so I guess if they had all been legitimate, but people all thought one of the three was legitimate, that would be a good excuse.
But the minute people became convinced none of them were legitimate, it would seem to make sense to elect another pope.
in this case there's no (serious) rival claimant. Sedevacantists generally (I'm aware there are nuances) think that Francis is not the Pope of Rome, and furthermore, that at least most of those who accept him as such aren't true Catholics. So what's stopping them from holding a conclave and producing a Pope?
-
In theory, there's nothing preventing it. Bellarmine addresses a scenario where all the Cardinals would be killed. He simply states the principle that the Church has the power by Divine Law to select a Pope, and that the institution of Cardinals is man-made. He stated that if the Cardinals would die, then the authority would be upon the clergy of Rome, but if they had died too, then an Imperfect Council could elect a pope.
Problem is that there also has to be Universal Acceptance that the process is legit. If 10 sedevacantists got together here, and 20 over there, and no one agreed, then there's nothing that constitutes a selection of a leader by THE CHURCH ... just little groups. And even if all the sedevacantists got together and elected someone, then you have the sedeprivationists who would not accept it, nor the R&R, nor those Catholics who remained in the Novus Ordo. So, given the fragmentation of this crisis, it's a practical impossibility that such an election would be legitimate (assuming, for the sake or argument, that the See IS in fact vacant ... since, if is not, then the answer is clear).
So that's why Bellarmine stated that the authority would devolve in the last resort to an Imperfect Council ... because there has to be SOME notion of universality and Universal Acceptance of the process and its results.
-
In theory, there's nothing preventing it. Bellarmine addresses a scenario where all the Cardinals would be killed. He simply states the principle that the Church has the power by Divine Law to select a Pope, and that the institution of Cardinals is man-made. He stated that if the Cardinals would die, then the authority would be upon the clergy of Rome, but if they had died too, then an Imperfect Council could elect a pope.
Problem is that there also has to be Universal Acceptance that the process is legit. If 10 sedevacantists got together here, and 20 over there, and no one agreed, then there's nothing that constitutes a selection of a leader by THE CHURCH ... just little groups. And even if all the sedevacantists got together and elected someone, then you have the sedeprivationists who would not accept it, nor the R&R, nor those Catholics who remained in the Novus Ordo. So, given the fragmentation of this crisis, it's a practical impossibility that such an election would be legitimate (assuming, for the sake or argument, that the See IS in fact vacant ... since, if is not, then the answer is clear).
So that's why Bellarmine stated that the authority would devolve in the last resort to an Imperfect Council ... because there has to be SOME notion of universality and Universal Acceptance of the process and its results.
I was assuming that the See was vacant for the sake of argument. Obviously if Francis is in fact the Pope, than you couldn't elect a different pope. I'm curious as to your thoughts on why I said I think sedeprivationism is a cop out in the OP. Does a Pope need universal acceptance to actually be a Pope? Like take for the sake of argument say the See was vacant, and the Sedes did all somehow band together and elect a Pope. Presumably those who still believed Francis was the Pope would be in good faith and excused, but that wouldn't mean Pope Sanborn or whoever isn't in fact Pope, would it?
-
When some sedevacantist groups have gone off and elected popes, it had to be with the at-least-implicit notion that they were the only Catholics left, that those who didn't agree with their election were no longer Catholics, and that certainly those who were not sedevacantists were not Catholics. Thereby, in eliminating all these people from the Church, there would remain a "universality" among the Church, since the Church would effectively be reduced to those who accepted the "Pope". So it ends up being a bit of a tautology, and the corollary of conclavism is the notion that they who elected the Pope are in fact all that remains of the Church.
-
When some sedevacantist groups have gone off and elected popes, it had to be with the at-least-implicit notion that they were the only Catholics left, that those who didn't agree with their election were no longer Catholics, and that certainly those who were not sedevacantists were not Catholics. Thereby, in eliminating all these people from the Church, there would remain a "universality" among the Church, since the Church would effectively be reduced to those who accepted the "Pope". So it ends up being a bit of a tautology, and the corollary of conclavism is the notion that they who elected the Pope are in fact all that remains of the Church.
I get that all these conclave groups are illegitimate, because they don't *even* entail a unity of those who do not think Francis is the Pope. That the Sedevacantists still cannot gather together and elect in unison a new pope, heavily inclines me to believe that the real reason that they can't is because we have a Pope, just a very bad one.
-
I was assuming that the See was vacant for the sake of argument. Obviously if Francis is in fact the Pope, than you couldn't elect a different pope. I'm curious as to your thoughts on why I said I think sedeprivationism is a cop out in the OP. Does a Pope need universal acceptance to actually be a Pope? Like take for the sake of argument say the See was vacant, and the Sedes did all somehow band together and elect a Pope. Presumably those who still believed Francis was the Pope would be in good faith and excused, but that wouldn't mean Pope Sanborn or whoever isn't in fact Pope, would it?
Right, I figured that you accepted a vacant see of the sake of argument, but I just wanted to make it explicit here.
I do not believe that a Pope needs Universal Acceptance to be the legitimate Pope. It's universally agreed that the minute that a Pope accepts the election, he becomes the legitimate pope. This is before any news of the election results have spread outside the walls of the Conclave. Also, it's clear that one of the Popes in the Great Western Schism WAS in fact the legitimate Pope despite the lack of universal acceptance. There was also the case of a Pope who was taken into exile, and while he was in exile, a new Pope was elected and Universally Accepted. That second one could not have been legitimate, because no human power can strip the papacy from a man once God has bestowed the authority of the papacy on him.
That is of course what I believe happened in 1958. Upon accepting the election (and taking the papal name), Cardinal Siri became the the legitimate Pope. But then a faction of Cardinals threatened him, and he stepped down. Such a resignation under grave duress is considered invalid. So they then elected Roncalli, who could not be the legitimate Pope since the occupation of the See was impeded by the prior legitimate election of Cardinal Siri. And then the enemies of the Church perpetrated this enormous fraud upon the faithful. [Universal Acceptance theorists believe that he would have been con-validated, but, as I stated earlier, I disagree with that principle, since no natural means can strip a living and sane man of papal authority once it has been conferred by God.]
It has to be that, in a sedevacante period, the TERMS of the election have to be agreed upon in principle by a moral unanimity of the Church. Once you have lost the legal structures (the Cardinals or the Roman clergy), which everyone would have agreed upon as legitimate in principle, then the Church must agree with a moral unanimity about the terms of the election. If significant numbers of Catholics did not agree that the conclave was legitimate, then it would in fact not be legitimate, lacking Universality. What makes an election by Cardinals pretty much automatic is that the Church universally agreed that it was the legitimate mechanism for the election of a Pope. Absent such universally-accepted mechanism, the lack of unanimity in any alternative mechanism would be fatal to its ability to elect a Pope.
-
I get that all these conclave groups are illegitimate, because they don't *even* entail a unity of those who do not think Francis is the Pope. That the Sedevacantists still cannot gather together and elect in unison a new pope, heavily inclines me to believe that the real reason that they can't is because we have a Pope, just a very bad one.
Perhaps, but while all the sedevacantists agree that the Holy See is vacant, they do not always see eye to eye about the particulars, the practical application of theory. Even among those who believe that the See is formally vacant, there are some, like the sedevacantists, who believe that Cajetan had a point against Bellarmine in arguing that some measure of authority is required to vacate the See. Recall that Bellarmine listed FIVE different opinions about what would happen to a heretical pope.
-
In theory, there's nothing preventing it. Bellarmine addresses a scenario where all the Cardinals would be killed. He simply states the principle that the Church has the power by Divine Law to select a Pope, and that the institution of Cardinals is man-made. He stated that if the Cardinals would die, then the authority would be upon the clergy of Rome, but if they had died too, then an Imperfect Council could elect a pope.
I guess this is just one possible answer regarding how R&R is not inconsistent to doubt the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration, yet accept BXVI was pope (i.e., despite being consecrated bishop according to the new rite).
-
I get that all these conclave groups are illegitimate, because they don't *even* entail a unity of those who do not think Francis is the Pope. That the Sedevacantists still cannot gather together and elect in unison a new pope, heavily inclines me to believe that the real reason that they can't is because we have a Pope, just a very bad one.
The reason they cannot elect a pope is because they do not have the legal right to do so. There has long been an argument against sedevacantism that, if sedes are able to say that the see is vacant, they should therefore be able to fill it by electing a pope. This does not follow. It would be like saying that, if you can see that a flash flood is coming while you are hiking up a dry gulch, you are therefore able to build a life raft in the next 10 seconds before it hits you. There is a fundamental difference between recognizing the existence of a problem and being able to fix it.
.
If you talk to the typical sedevacantist priest or bishop, he will tell you that he possesses no ordinary jurisdiction, and he only exercises his orders for the good of souls by saying Mass, hearing confessions, performing Extreme Unction, and other similar duties. These things can be justified in canon law, by various canons which state that any priest may confer the sacraments in case of necessity when a priest who has ordinary jurisdiction is not available. They generally consider this sort of thing to be the limit of what they are able to do, and this obviously does not include the power to elect a pope.
.
And also, as Ladislaus said, there is really no way to get all sedevacantists to agree on a method of election, even if they thought they had the power to do so. The problem of electing a true pope, as far as I can see, is outside the realm of human ability at the moment. But then again, it's also outside the realm of human ability for the SSPX and similar-minded people to get the people in Rome to act like Catholics either, so fundamentally we are all in the same boat, and we all are just awaiting God's will.
-
Every traditional Catholic group is not equal in authority when attempting to elect a pope. Obviously a mother and father conclave in rural Kansas which results in their son claiming the Roman See is a comical farce. But if a small group of Roman clerics met in council or a large group of traditional bishops met in an imperfect council which had the support of a few Roman clerics, then that group would have to be taken seriously. John Daly and James Larrabee have written excellent articles on this topic. The links are in some other thread on this forum. You can search my posts to find them.
-
No, there does NOT have to be universal acceptance in the sense of all Catholics or more specifically all traditional Catholics or even all traditional Catholic clergy. If the vast majority of traditional Catholic clergy of Rome accept the claim then it is a done deal. It really doesn’t matter if a large number of Catholics go off into schism. Certainly that would be something that everyone would want to avoid like the plague but it would not invalidate the election.
-
Sean, I do see the potential for someone like Vigano to unite sedes and r&r but we are a long way from that. Definitely something to pray for.
-
Every traditional Catholic group is not equal in authority when attempting to elect a pope. Obviously a mother and father conclave in rural Kansas which results in their son claiming the Roman See is a comical farce. But if a small group of Roman clerics met in council or a large group of traditional bishops met in an imperfect council which had the support of a few Roman clerics, then that group would have to be taken seriously. John Daly and James Larrabee have written excellent articles on this topic. The links are in some other thread on this forum. You can search my posts to find them.
Obviously I know Pope Michael is a farce. What I had in mind was something like, all the SSPV bishops, all the CMRI bishops, all the Bishops in Donald Sanborn's group (is that just him? Honestly don't know) basically, if all the bishops who consider themselves to be Roman Catholic and do not consider Pope Francis to be a valid pope.... were to gather and elect a pope I cannot imagine that wouldn't be a valid if the see is indeed vacant.
-
Sedes and Resistance r&r agree that a new religion was instituted in the wake of V2. If all we had was a few theological controversies or a upward trend in liturgical abuses, there would be no Sspx and no CMRI and no independent bishops, etc. It was because a new religion came into being and it was claiming to retain the Catholic title. Vigano looks like he is beginning to reject that new religion and a man of his stature could generate some momentum. We’ll see.
-
Obviously I know Pope Michael is a farce. What I had in mind was something like, all the SSPV bishops, all the CMRI bishops, all the Bishops in Donald Sanborn's group (is that just him? Honestly don't know) basically, if all the bishops who consider themselves to be Roman Catholic and do not consider Pope Francis to be a valid pope.... were to gather and elect a pope I cannot imagine that wouldn't be a valid if the see is indeed vacant.
I don’t see an American claimant getting any acceptance at all in Rome. Best bet is an Italian claimant. But that implies Italian participation. That could happen. It would be great if someone like Vigano started questioning the validity of NO sacraments. If he did and he got a significant Italian following, that would be a very powerful combination.
-
There are sedes in Italy. Fr Abramovitz is maybe the most well known since he was a former member of the SSPX.
-
Yes, it is an absolute requirement that the pope is the Bishop of Rome. That is de fide.
-
The pope has not always resided in Rome but he has always (since St Peter established the see) been the Bishop of Rome. For a number of years the pope resided in Avignon. But that was scandalous. If you are the Bishop of Rome, you belong in Rome where you can care for the faithful who live there. You don’t have to be a cleric of Rome to be elected. Men from all over Europe have been elected in the past. But no American has ever been elected and to my knowledge no native English-speaking man has ever been elected either. Italians don’t really like Americans too much. They can probably tolerate someone from a European country but another Italian is probably the most acceptable. Where is Fr D’Esposito from? At least he has a good name for a pope. Might be a good start.
-
This may derail the thread but I think it is related. Didn’t Gary Giuffre speculate that the Freemasons knew they couldn’t count on electing their own man directly? Because if they had elected a Freemason directly, he would have converted to Catholicism and turned out to be a decent pope. After all Our Lord prayed that Peter would not lose his faith. So that’s why Bellarmine believed no pope would ever fall into heresy. And then the same thing happened at the 1962 conclave. By 1978 the new religion was already instituted so those conclaves were not legitimate any way. But both Roncalli and Montini were illegitimately installed. That’s the only way the Freemasons could be sure their guy wouldn’t be converted by the grace of the office. Why would they wait for Siri to be elected first before going nuclear? Why not just bully the cardinals into electing their man from the getgo? Because they wanted their guy to never actually receive the office. They wanted a pope in name only.
-
There are sedes in Italy. Fr Abramovitz is maybe the most well known since he was a former member of the SSPX.
And there's Mater Boni Consilii Institute
https://www.sodalitiumpianum.com/who-we-are/
-
Yes, it is an absolute requirement that the pope is the Bishop of Rome. That is de fide.
Yes, He will become Bishop of Rome by virtue of his election. He is not required to have a previous affiliation with the Diocese of Rome.
-
This may derail the thread but I think it is related. Didn’t Gary Giuffre speculate that the Freemasons knew they couldn’t count on electing their own man directly? Because if they had elected a Freemason directly, he would have converted to Catholicism and turned out to be a decent pope. After all Our Lord prayed that Peter would not lose his faith.
That and the fact that God would prevent a legitimate Pope from teaching serious error to the Church, to the point of striking him dead if he had intended to do so and was on the point of doing it.
THAT is why the Masons insisted on letting Siri accept, becoming the pope, and then basically casting him aside and planting an illegitimate impostor in his place. I find this theory to be extremely plausible, and a perfect explanation for how this could have happened to the Catholic Church.
Otherwise, I agree with Giuffre that, even if an occult heretic of some kind had infiltrated the papacy, God would still have prevented him from gravely erroneous official teaching, preserving the integrity of the Magisterium.
-
Yes, He will become Bishop of Rome by virtue of his election. He is not required to have a previous affiliation with the Diocese of Rome.
Right, I believe that this is what Bellarmine implied, but it's been a log time since I read what he wrote on this subject.
-
Why would they wait for Siri to be elected first before going nuclear? Why not just bully the cardinals into electing their man from the getgo? Because they wanted their guy to never actually receive the office. They wanted a pope in name only.
Sorry, I clipped this question (which I was answering) from the previous quotation I made.
If they merely stuck an occult heretic impostor into the See, God would still have protected the See from error. It's only by having a legitimate Pope shoved aside preventing the next one from being legitimate that God's protection of the Magisterium would recede from the person. Let's say Roncalli had been elected straight out and he wanted to teach grave error to the Church. God would prevent him from doing so ... even to the point of striking him dead. But if Roncalli was not the legitimate Pope, God's protection against error would not be with him.
This kindof speaks to Bellarmine's notion that an occult heretic would remain a legitimate Pope. Let's say an evil man who was dead set on destroying the Church and keeping his intentions completely secret were elected to the papacy. According to Bellarmine, and most others, he would in fact be the legitimate Pope with all the protections of the Holy Spirit surrounding his exercise of the office. If he then set about trying to define a heretical dogma, God would strike him dead if necessary to prevent this.
So the Masons played this shell game where they removed the legitimate Pope from sight and trotted out an illegitimate impostor.
-
This may derail the thread but I think it is related. Didn’t Gary Giuffre speculate that the Freemasons knew they couldn’t count on electing their own man directly? Because if they had elected a Freemason directly, he would have converted to Catholicism and turned out to be a decent pope. After all Our Lord prayed that Peter would not lose his faith. So that’s why Bellarmine believed no pope would ever fall into heresy. And then the same thing happened at the 1962 conclave. By 1978 the new religion was already instituted so those conclaves were not legitimate any way. But both Roncalli and Montini were illegitimately installed. That’s the only way the Freemasons could be sure their guy wouldn’t be converted by the grace of the office. Why would they wait for Siri to be elected first before going nuclear? Why not just bully the cardinals into electing their man from the getgo? Because they wanted their guy to never actually receive the office. They wanted a pope in name only.
Recall too that the first man elected after the death of Siri was Ratzinger. Either by then the entire Cardinalate had become so vitiated by manifest heretics (if you're straight sedevacantist vs. privationist) or else recall that Ratzinger was the first man elected who was consecrated in the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration. If a man is not a valid bishop, he cannot exercise some powers of the papacy, including Magisterium, since only Bishops can be part of the Ecclesia Docens. And then Bergoglio may not even be a priest, and this is, BTW, why the Dimonds say that he doesn't count among the list of "Kings of Rome" suggested by the Apocalypse, because the Roman kingship is sacerdotal.
-
The pope has not always resided in Rome but he has always (since St Peter established the see) been the Bishop of Rome. For a number of years the pope resided in Avignon. But that was scandalous. If you are the Bishop of Rome, you belong in Rome where you can care for the faithful who live there. You don’t have to be a cleric of Rome to be elected. Men from all over Europe have been elected in the past. But no American has ever been elected and to my knowledge no native English-speaking man has ever been elected either. Italians don’t really like Americans too much. They can probably tolerate someone from a European country but another Italian is probably the most acceptable. Where is Fr D’Esposito from? At least he has a good name for a pope. Might be a good start.
Actually, there was Pope Adrian IV, Nicholas Breakspear:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Adrian_IV
IMHO the Catholic Church needs to quit being the "Italian National Catholic Church" --- this "romanitas" thing (translated: it takes 100 years to get any problem solved) has allowed heresy, error, and abuse to run rampant, while we are assured all along that "Rome moves slowly". If not for the Internet, would the sex abuse scandal ever have come to light?
Don't get me wrong, the Pope must be the Bishop of Rome, but Italy needs to be an equal among Catholic nations, not the 800-pound gorilla. And maybe a straight-talking Anglo-Saxon is what it would take, to begin to get things back to where they need to be. (I think there is at least one "straight-talking Anglo-Saxon" who we can all agree is a pretty good guy!)
-
If they merely stuck an occult heretic impostor into the See, God would still have protected the See from error. It's only by having a legitimate Pope shoved aside preventing the next one from being legitimate that God's protection of the Magisterium would recede from the person. Let's say Roncalli had been elected straight out and he wanted to teach grave error to the Church. God would prevent him from doing so ... even to the point of striking him dead. But if Roncalli was not the legitimate Pope, God's protection against error would not be with him.
It's an appealing idea, and a simple explanation for the crisis in the Church, but I don't see why the Siri/Roncalli scenario doesn't suffer from a different problem which would create the same result. Sure, God would prevent a true pope from teaching heresy. We agree on that. But wouldn't God also, for the same reason, protect His Church from universally accepting a heretic as pope, if he wasn't pope? The protection of the papacy from error doesn't seem very useful if we have no protection from adhering to someone who isn't the pope. In other words, what good does it do to the Church to know we are protected from having a pope who teaches error, if we have no corresponding protection from accepting a man (a heretic, even) as pope who isn't the pope?
.
Don't get me wrong. I like this idea because it has a simplicity and completeness to it. But like with all attempts to explain the current situation in the Church, it only solves one problem by creating another. :cowboy:
-
Recall too that the first man elected after the death of Siri was Ratzinger. Either by then the entire Cardinalate had become so vitiated by manifest heretics (if you're straight sedevacantist vs. privationist) or else recall that Ratzinger was the first man elected who was consecrated in the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration. If a man is not a valid bishop, he cannot exercise some powers of the papacy, including Magisterium, since only Bishops can be part of the Ecclesia Docens. And then Bergoglio may not even be a priest, and this is, BTW, why the Dimonds say that he doesn't count among the list of "Kings of Rome" suggested by the Apocalypse, because the Roman kingship is sacerdotal.
Do you buy the Dimond 7 priest kings theory?
I wonder what the Dimonds will do if another Pope is elected (whether you and they think he's an antipope or not being irrelevant) since the way they currently framed the theory seems to bank on Francis being the last serious claimant.
-
The reason they cannot elect a pope is because they do not have the legal right to do so.
Who has the legal right to elect a true Pope now? Those men would be the true hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Are the sedes in Communion with them? Do they know whose any of these men are? And if they are known why have they not done their duty of electing a pope?
-
Do you buy the Dimond 7 priest kings theory?
I wonder what the Dimonds will do if another Pope is elected (whether you and they think he's an antipope or not being irrelevant) since the way they currently framed the theory seems to bank on Francis being the last serious claimant.
I'm not sure if I buy it completely, but I don't rule it out either. I think that it would fit. I certainly believe that the Conciliar Church is none other than the Whore of Babylon.
-
I may have asked this before, its a question i have periodically, but I'm gonna raise this again.
if you're a Sede, what exactly prevents the Sedevacantist bishops from holding a conclave and electing a pope?
I mean pretty much every trad and especially every sede already agrees with some principle of "the normal rules don't apply during a crisis situation." So why would it be that the CHurch couldn't produce for itself a pope?
Even with Sedeprivationism, would having a non Catholic (under the sede paradigm) with a valid election to the pontificate that they couldn't receive really inhibit the Church from producing for itself a new pope?
Like hypothetically, if the College of Cardinals somehow elected a Protestant to the papacy in the 1500s, OK that would be invalid, they could then elect another pope. They wouldn't have to wait till the Protestant converted or died, right?
What am I missing here? 'cause where I'm sitting right now, I understand (though don't agree with) the sede diagnosis, but they seem to write themselves into a corner on the solution.
Because they don't elevate the pope over the faith. It is not a "make or break" issue. One is saved by the Catholic faith, which recognizes the structure of Christ's Church as having a pope as the head of it - a pope who also possesses the Catholic faith, which is the sine qua non for all of us. But if God wills that that such be not the case at some particular moment in time (the Great Apostasy?), God's will is supreme and submitted to.
The Church survived the Great Western Schism intact; it survives this.
Why would a faithful Catholic like Bishop Sanborn and other Sede bishops with the same take upon themselves such an extraordinary and questionable arrogation of authority when such an extreme act is not necessary to salvation for themselves and others who possess the Catholic faith?
There would only be the potential curse of schism, with the only upside "having a pope," which is not - as I said - necessary.
The responsible and wise Sede bishops - like Sanborn - are not fools, and know better than to take such an extreme and unnecessary (worth the emphasis!!!) step that could lead souls to hell, when it's not necessary to lead them to heaven.
-
I'm not sure if I buy it completely, but I don't rule it out either. I think that it would fit. I certainly believe that the Conciliar Church is none other than the Whore of Babylon.
Interesting, Lad. I value your opinion, and appreciate your sharing that.
-
Do you buy the Dimond 7 priest kings theory?
I wonder what the Dimonds will do if another Pope is elected (whether you and they think he's an antipope or not being irrelevant) since the way they currently framed the theory seems to bank on Francis being the last serious claimant.
The 7 Kings theory they have isn't necessarily reliant on Francis being the last pope, since they say Francis himself isn't even one of the kings. Francis being the last pope is just their theory based on St. Malachy's Prophecy, which honestly seems very doubtful to me.
-
The 7 Kings theory they have isn't necessarily reliant on Francis being the last pope, since they say Francis himself isn't even one of the kings. Francis being the last pope is just their theory based on St. Malachy's Prophecy, which honestly seems very doubtful to me.
Right, they exclude Bergoglio because he was ordained New Rite and therefore, in their view, not even a valid priest, and they cite some text about the Kingship of Rome being sacerdotal in nature.
-
Interesting, Lad. I value your opinion, and appreciate your sharing that.
I could go into detail, but the description of the Whore of Babylon fits perfectly the Conciliar Church. Now, the Prots claim that it is the Church itself because of many of the features which make it sound like the Catholic hierarchy, but it's actually a perversion (whoring) of the hierarchy, and not the hierarchy itself as the Prots assert. St. Peter does himself refer to Rome as "Babylon".
-
The pope is necessary. And when there isn’t a pope, it is the hierarchy’s chief responsibility to provide the Church with one. To say that the pope isn’t necessary is to align oneself to Protestant heretics and Orthodox schismatics. The pope is our guarantee against falling away from the faith. You can not be sure you yourself have preserved your faith unless you are united with the pope. In the case where there is no pope for an extended period of time or at least where the supposed pope is a manifest heretic we should be terrified for our own salvation.
-
The pope is necessary. And when there isn’t a pope, it is the hierarchy’s chief responsibility to provide the Church with one. To say that the pope isn’t necessary is to align oneself to Protestant heretics and Orthodox schismatics. The pope is our guarantee against falling away from the faith. You can not be sure you yourself have preserved your faith unless you are united with the pope. In the case where there is no pope for an extended period of time or at least where the supposed pope is a manifest heretic we should be terrified for our own salvation.
You clearly haven't understood my post. I used was speaking of necessity in the sense of salvation, as may reference to the Catholic faith should have made apparent.
The Catholic faith is necessary (as a necessity of means) to salvation; having a Catholic pope on the seat of Peter is not.
According to your reading of my post, if the Sedes are right, and we have no pope at present, that means no one can be saved at present. That's absurd.
And . . aren't you a Sede? Do you truly believe then that no one can be saved at present?
-
I guess this is just one possible answer regarding how R&R is not inconsistent to doubt the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration, yet accept BXVI was pope (i.e., despite being consecrated bishop according to the new rite).
I don't see how that works. Ladislaus' argument is that the Church could obviously select for itself a Pope without *Cardinals*. Which I agree with, and which was my point in the OP. Cardinals aren't a part of divine law, and there werent' any in the Church for (about) 1000 years. Sure, the human laws (of the present pope, or of Pius XII if you don't accept the recent claimants) require cardinals, but the Church's highest law is the salvation of souls and all that... if there really hasn't been a pope since Pius XII, I think he'd understand and agree with the Church's necessity not to follow his ecclesial laws in this situation.
This doesn't answer how a non bishop could be the Vicar of Christ.
-
I have often wondered about that myself. Why don't they meet and elect their own pope? Or if they don't like the one in Rome why don't they go to the one in Egypt?
-
It's an appealing idea, and a simple explanation for the crisis in the Church, but I don't see why the Siri/Roncalli scenario doesn't suffer from a different problem which would create the same result. Sure, God would prevent a true pope from teaching heresy. We agree on that. But wouldn't God also, for the same reason, protect His Church from universally accepting a heretic as pope, if he wasn't pope? The protection of the papacy from error doesn't seem very useful if we have no protection from adhering to someone who isn't the pope. In other words, what good does it do to the Church to know we are protected from having a pope who teaches error, if we have no corresponding protection from accepting a man (a heretic, even) as pope who isn't the pope?
.
Don't get me wrong. I like this idea because it has a simplicity and completeness to it. But like with all attempts to explain the current situation in the Church, it only solves one problem by creating another. :cowboy:
This is the most interesting post in this thread IMO.
Why would God prevent the pope from teaching heresy, if He wouldn't prevent a man believed to be the pope by the entire Church from teaching heresy? Both causes have the exact same effect - the entire Church being misled.
-
I could go into detail, but the description of the Whore of Babylon fits perfectly the Conciliar Church. Now, the Prots claim that it is the Church itself because of many of the features which make it sound like the Catholic hierarchy, but it's actually a perversion (whoring) of the hierarchy, and not the hierarchy itself as the Prots assert. St. Peter does himself refer to Rome as "Babylon".
Did Pre Vatican II eschatology argue in that manner?
The reason I ask is because if not (and I'd never heard of this, only from Sedevacantists) this almost seems like a Sedevacantist "stealing" of historicism from Prots.
As a former Prot, I used to exist in these circles, where the Pope was considered to be the Antichrist, and I've heard the accusation raised by them that "Catholics invented preterism and futurism to take attention off the Pope" and such.
Now obviously I don't buy into that, just, it seemed odd to me that the Dimonds almost seemed like they were coopting Protestant historicist arguments which I'd never seen made by Catholic theologians otherwise.
-
I have often wondered about that myself. Why don't they meet and elect their own pope? Or if they don't like the one in Rome why don't they go to the one in Egypt?
Well Egypt would have a completely different theology of papacy (and theology in general) so that part makes sense to me.
-
@ByzCat3000
St. Augustine commenting on 2 Thess. 2 says:
But it is uncertain in what temple he shall sit, whether in that ruin of the temple which was built by Solomon, or in the Church; for the apostle would not call the temple of any idol or demon the temple of God. And on this account some think that in this passage Antichrist means not the prince himself alone, but his whole body, that is, the mass of men who adhere to him, along with him their prince; and they also think that we should render the Greek more exactly were we to read, not "in the temple of God," but "for" or "as the temple of God," as if he himself were the temple of God, the Church.
newadvent.org (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120120.htm)
It seems to me, that Augustine predicts the impostor Conciliar Sect (Antichrist plus his body) sitting as if she were the temple of God, as if she were the Church. Consequently, the harlot of Rev. 17 would be the same Conciliar Sect, perceived to be the Catholic Church by virtually the whole world.
-
It's an appealing idea, and a simple explanation for the crisis in the Church, but I don't see why the Siri/Roncalli scenario doesn't suffer from a different problem which would create the same result. Sure, God would prevent a true pope from teaching heresy. We agree on that. But wouldn't God also, for the same reason, protect His Church from universally accepting a heretic as pope, if he wasn't pope?
Well, there's precedent for God allowing the Church, as a whole, not to agree upon who the rightful Pope was, during the Great Western Schism. I'm sure that theologians might have considered the Great Western Schism to be impossible also ... except that it happened. As some punishment by God due to the lukewarmness and Modernism in the Church, God allowed the true Pope to be hidden. We've also had the precedent of a pope taken into exile, and then another elected in his place (and receiving universal acceptance) while the first one still lived.
I don't believe in the theory that Universal Acceptance can convalidate an illegitimate pope into being the legitimate pope. Also, Universal Acceptance, formally speaking, consists of universal agreement and acceptance by the Church of whoever was legitimately elected in the Conclave, with the rules in place established by the previous reigning Pope. So the Church formally accepted Pope Gregory XVII (Siri) while the Church's enemies materially swapped out the rightful pope in a kind of shell game. No, the Church does not FORMALLY accept this illegitimately-elected impostor as Pope, even if in material error regarding the person who was elected.
-
Well, there's precedent for God allowing the Church, as a whole, not to agree upon who the rightful Pope was, during the Great Western Schism. I'm sure that theologians might have considered the Great Western Schism to be impossible also ... except that it happened. As some punishment by God due to the lukewarmness and Modernism in the Church, God allowed the true Pope to be hidden. We've also had the precedent of a pope taken into exile, and then another elected in his place (and receiving universal acceptance) while the first one still lived.
I don't believe in the theory that Universal Acceptance can convalidate an illegitimate pope into being the legitimate pope. Also, Universal Acceptance, formally speaking, consists of universal agreement and acceptance by the Church of whoever was legitimately elected in the Conclave, with the rules in place established by the previous reigning Pope. So the Church formally accepted Pope Gregory XVII (Siri) while the Church's enemies materially swapped out the rightful pope in a kind of shell game. No, the Church does not FORMALLY accept this illegitimately-elected impostor as Pope, even if in material error regarding the person who was elected.
Let's say, for a second, that the Imposter Paul VI theory were in play, that Montini was put in a dungeon and some guy was enhanced with plastic surgery to take his place. Does that constitute erroneous Universal Acceptance? No, it's a material error. Church accepts formally the true Montini, but if they substitute a fake guy for the true Montini, the Church might fall (materially) for the substitution but would not accept this man if they knew him to be an imposter. So I find that is analogous with the Siri situation.
-
Let's say, for a second, that the Imposter Paul VI theory were in play, that Montini was put in a dungeon and some guy was enhanced with plastic surgery to take his place. Does that constitute erroneous Universal Acceptance? No, it's a material error. Church accepts formally the true Montini, but if they substitute a fake guy for the true Montini, the Church might fall (materially) for the substitution but would not accept this man if they knew him to be an imposter. So I find that is analogous with the Siri situation.
hmmmmm I wonder about this. This could get kind of clowny. Like what if the Church was "materially in error" about Pope Pius XII? Like say he got kidnapped by nαzιs or something, and they dressed up some other guy as Pius XII and that antipope was the one who gave us the assumption dogma. On the principles you're laying down, it seems permissible for a Catholic to believe something like that.
-
hmmmmm I wonder about this. This could get kind of clowny. Like what if the Church was "materially in error" about Pope Pius XII? Like say he got kidnapped by nαzιs or something, and they dressed up some other guy as Pius XII and that antipope was the one who gave us the assumption dogma. On the principles you're laying down, it seems permissible for a Catholic to believe something like that.
We also wouldn't know if various ecuмenical councils were actually approved by a real pope and not by some imposter, or someone who was installed after a Siri-style resignation under duress(a cardinal Siri-esque figure in the 500s or something would be completely lost to history). There's effectively nothing we could be sure of.
I suppose you could apply the question of positive and negative doubt - we know of reason to doubt the 1958 Conclave but not the 1939 Conclave(as far as I know). Still, reasons to doubt past conclaves could've simply been lost to history, so it doesn't seem like a tenable position to me.
-
I have often wondered about that myself. Why don't they meet and elect their own pope? Or if they don't like the one in Rome why don't they go to the one in Egypt?
Pretty sure that they haven't elected their own pope because they would not be able to agree on whom to elect. If they held a conclave, it would go on for years and years.
-
hmmmmm I wonder about this. This could get kind of clowny. Like what if the Church was "materially in error" about Pope Pius XII? Like say he got kidnapped by nαzιs or something, and they dressed up some other guy as Pius XII and that antipope was the one who gave us the assumption dogma. On the principles you're laying down, it seems permissible for a Catholic to believe something like that.
God would not do that without at the same time giving signs that something is awry. We have all the destruction of Vatican II with God basically pointing down in a big neon sign that something has gone awry with the pope/papacy. God allowed the confusion of the Great Western Schism, and now God is allowing this mess. Basically it's a sifting by virtue of faith and also a chastisement. Point is that the Church's Universal Acceptance is not formally compromised by an impostor pope. Material error and confusion are possible.
-
Pretty sure that they haven't elected their own pope because they would not be able to agree on whom to elect. If they held a conclave, it would go on for years and years.
Maybe a part of the problem is that everyone wants to be pope.
-
@ByzCat3000
St. Augustine commenting on 2 Thess. 2 says:
newadvent.org (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120120.htm)
It seems to me, that Augustine predicts the impostor Conciliar Sect (Antichrist plus his body) sitting as if she were the temple of God, as if she were the Church. Consequently, the harlot of Rev. 17 would be the same Conciliar Sect, perceived to be the Catholic Church by virtually the whole world.
Yes.
Non enim omnes qui ex Israel sunt, ii sunt Israelitae - not all are Israelites that are of Israel. Rom. 9:6.
Judgment is coming upon this shell, mere "body" Israel, as it did upon the old. Cf. Matthew 3:12 and 2 Thessalonians 2:8,10.
-
Pretty sure that they haven't elected their own pope because they would not be able to agree on whom to elect. If they held a conclave, it would go on for years and years.
Uhm, no. It’s because most of them do not believe that they have the authority or right to do so. You pass up no chance to smear sedevacantists with your strawman constructs.
-
We also wouldn't know if various ecuмenical councils were actually approved by a real pope and not by some imposter, or someone who was installed after a Siri-style resignation under duress(a cardinal Siri-esque figure in the 500s or something would be completely lost to history). There's effectively nothing we could be sure of.
I suppose you could apply the question of positive and negative doubt - we know of reason to doubt the 1958 Conclave but not the 1939 Conclave(as far as I know). Still, reasons to doubt past conclaves could've simply been lost to history, so it doesn't seem like a tenable position to me.
This is basically my objection to the Siri scenario. If you say that all the cardinals can come out of the conclave and say they elected a pope, and all of them be lying, this basically destroys any way to know for certain who the pope is. It is a historical fact that not one single cardinal from the 1958 conclave ever denied that Roncalli was elected. The closest you can get is that Siri himself was asked if he was elected and he gave an evasive answer. And this is only in a private conversation that was not on what you could call the public record. In other words, not that I really think those Frenchmen are making the conversation up, but honestly we only have their word for what they claim Siri said. It seems hard to reject an entire papacy based on something like that.
.
In the bigger picture, this could call into question almost any conclave if this were possible. Someone could come out years later and claim that the reigning pope bribed the Cardinal of Mogadishu, for example, with a trainload of rocket-powered grenades so he would vote for him. Or some janitor for the conclave could come out later and say he found a note in one of the cardinals' wastebaskets that he wrote to another cardinal promising him something if he voted for him. Or the waiter who serves their midday meal could say he saw one of the cardinals staggering a little on his way out of the refectory because he drank a little too much limoncello afterwards, so his vote is in doubt because he was drunk. The possibilities are endless, and believe me, there is no shortage of people who are ready to come forward with stories like this, true or false. Stuff like this is exactly how the Great Western Schism started. I grant that doubts about Roncalli's papacy involve far more serious questions than bribery or conclave gossip, but I think it's inherently a weak argument to say he wasn't pope because something went wrong in the conclave. The Church deliberately makes it as hard as possible for people to know what goes on in a conclave, for precisely that reason, so that no one could use conclave shenanigans to question a pope's claim to the papacy.
.
While I grant that most of what Roncalli did during his reign(?) raises solid reasons to question his orthodoxy, I have a hard time seeing that the stories the Siri thesis involves really indicate that much. I say let's stick with what we know for certain, starting with Roncalli's public record as pope(?).