Author Topic: Quote from old Catholic book supports sedevacantists (Read 4528 times)

saintbosco13 · « **on:** February 04, 2017, 08:42:11 PM »

I was doing some random reading on the Great Western Schism tonight and stumbled across an interesting quote from a book called, "The Great Schism of the West" (Nihil Obstat/Imprimi Potest 1906).

Some quick background for those not familiar with the Great Western Schism... In the late 14th-century after Pope Urban VI was just elected in Rome, there was some confusion and disagreement which led to the Cardinals electing a second Pope named Clement VII in Avignon. For the next 40 years, no one knew who the Pope was because neither Urban nor Clement would abdicate. Some sided with Urban (referred to as "Urbanists") and some with Clement (referred to as "Clementines").

Going to the book at the link below brings you to a page that states, "The Urbanists of Bruges refused to hear mass said by Clementine priests". Some other books in Google books say the same, that neither side would attend each other's masses. This was obviously because each side believed the other was under a false Pope. I found this interesting because sedevacantists are condemned for doing the same. They obviously shouldn't be because this book makes it obvious that this is standard procedure.

Link to the page in the book where the quote is found:

The Great Schism of the West 1906

Nadir · « **Reply #1 on:** February 04, 2017, 09:43:37 PM »

Neither the "Urbanists" nor the "Clementines" were sedevacantist. So how does their refusal to attend each others Masses parallel sedevacantists not attending (hearing) Masses offered by non-sede priests?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #2 on:** February 04, 2017, 09:43:38 PM »

Two things were different then.

There were TWO sides, each of which said the OTHER was following a false pope, whereas today, the sedevacantists cannot be accused of following any false pope.

And the other thing different about then: there is no song about the sedevacantists, but there is a song about the Clementines.........

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/arL3QzNBc6A[/youtube]

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #3 on:** February 04, 2017, 10:26:33 PM »

Quote

this book makes it obvious that this is standard procedure.

Yes, it is standard procedure for people to make illogical, emotional and wrong conclusions based on correct principles (this is why we need a church and a hierarchy). However, this is not standard CATHOLIC procedure, which is:

In necessary things, unity.
In doubtful things, liberty.
In all things, charity.

It is NOT necessary (or required, or allowed, or advised) for we priests/laity to "pick sides" in a papal issue (whether the question is two popes, or no pope). What IS necessary is to fulfil our daily duty, to keep the commandments, and to live the Faith. Anything other than this, and we're "above our pay grade" as they say.

Cantarella · « **Reply #4 on:** February 04, 2017, 11:06:18 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

And the other thing different about then: there is no song about the sedevacantists, but there is a song about the Clementines.........

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/arL3QzNBc6A[/youtube]

saintbosco13 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 04, 2017, 11:08:12 PM »

Quote from: Nadir

Neither the "Urbanists" nor the "Clementines" were sedevacantist. So how does their refusal to attend each others Masses parallel sedevacantists not attending (hearing) Masses offered by non-sede priests?

The comparison I am making is as follows:

1. The Urbanist Catholics refused to attend the Masses of the Clementines because they believed the Clementines were following a false Pope (and vice versa).

2. The Sedevacantist Catholics (many of them) refuse to attend the Masses of the SSPX because they believe the SSPX is following a false Pope. (same for the Novus ordo)

No one today faults the Urbanists for doing what they did, nor the Clementines for doing the same. Yet today some people are declaring the Sedevacantists "dogmatic", evil, and other terms for doing the same thing. The SSPX needs to put themselves in the shoes of the sedevacantist; it is the DUTY of a Catholic to avoid (and tell others to avoid) masses where they believe the clergy are acting schismatically (or where they believe the validity of the clergy are doubtful for some reason). The actions of the Urbanists and Clementines shows this - the sedevacantists are not doing anything out of the norm acting this way.

Nadir · « **Reply #6 on:** February 05, 2017, 02:01:55 AM »

Nobody has the "DUTY" which you descibe, nor the responsibility of judging popes. As Pax vobis says: emotional, illogical, wrong...

You make your decisions for yourself and for no other.

saintbosco13 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 05, 2017, 12:49:46 PM »

Quote from: Nadir

Nobody has the "DUTY" which you descibe, nor the responsibility of judging popes. As Pax vobis says: emotional, illogical, wrong...

You make your decisions for yourself and for no other.

The people in the 14th century had to make a judgment whether Urban or Clement was the true Pope, and after they made that judgment, they followed the Pope of their choice entirely in matters of faith and morals. The sedevacantists are not doing much differently; they're making a judgment on whether Francis is a true Pope, and in their case not following him at all because they don't believe he is true based on prior magisterial statements. The sedevacantist bishops and priests then tell their flocks to stay away. This is normal as we see from this book in 1906.

Also keep in mind that those priests following Pope Clement were otherwise entirely Catholic, and the validity of their orders and Sacraments were not in question. Likewise for the priests and faithful following Pope Urban. The ONLY thing that changed during the Western Schism was that these priests and laypeople on each side were believed to suddenly be following a false Pope. Notice that this alone was enough for those who followed Pope Urban to stay away from the Clementine Masses (and vice versa), even though those masses were VALID. Why? Because by following anyone other than a true Pope it is considered schismatic by definition, and as we know, the Church has always stated it is the duty of every Catholic to avoid schismatics.

The bottom line is, the sedevacantists are reacting the same way as the Catholics did during the Western Schism and should not be faulted for doing so.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #8 on:** February 05, 2017, 01:35:46 PM »

My common sense informs me this way; Popes Urban or Clement were considered Anti-popes because neither of them were True Popes, but not because they taught heresy.

Today those who believe Francis is a True Pope have much to answer for, since especially with Francis it is so very obvious that he is a heretic. Heretics and schismatics are barred by DIVINE LAW from the election to the Papal Office. Pope Pius XII lifted ecclesiastical penalties; he did not, would not, could not dispense from Divine Law.

Also a doubtful pope is no pope, REMEMBER THAT ONE!

saintbosco13 · « **Reply #9 on:** February 05, 2017, 01:56:02 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

My common sense informs me this way; Popes Urban or Clement were considered Anti-popes because neither of them were True Popes, but not because they taught heresy.

Today those who believe Francis is a True Pope have much to answer for, since especially with Francis it is so very obvious that he is a heretic. Heretics and schismatics are barred by DIVINE LAW from the election to the Papal Office. Pope Pius XII lifted ecclesiastical penalties; he did not, would not, could not dispense from Divine Law.

Also a doubtful pope is no pope, REMEMBER THAT ONE!

Agreed with your points on heresy! Though just to clarify on your first statement above, later it was determined that Pope Urban was actually the true Pope since he was the first elected. The Clementines thought he was false, but he was actually the true Pope the entire time. So Pope Urban is not considered an anti-pope.

TKGS · « **Reply #10 on:** February 05, 2017, 02:21:23 PM »

The major difference between the Great Western Schism and the situation in which we find ourselves today is that during the Great Western Schism all of the claimants to the papacy were Catholic. One cannot, in good faith, make the same claim today.

songbird · « **Reply #11 on:** February 05, 2017, 02:46:50 PM »

Vatican I, infallibility defines pope, defines nomination. We can judge outside, we don't judge hearts, that is for God.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #12 on:** February 05, 2017, 03:04:03 PM »

Quote from: saintbosco13

Quote from: MyrnaM
My common sense informs me this way; Popes Urban or Clement were considered Anti-popes because neither of them were True Popes, but not because they taught heresy.

Today those who believe Francis is a True Pope have much to answer for, since especially with Francis it is so very obvious that he is a heretic. Heretics and schismatics are barred by DIVINE LAW from the election to the Papal Office. Pope Pius XII lifted ecclesiastical penalties; he did not, would not, could not dispense from Divine Law.

Also a doubtful pope is no pope, REMEMBER THAT ONE!

Agreed with your points on heresy! Though just to clarify on your first statement above, later it was determined that Pope Urban was actually the true Pope since he was the first elected. The Clementines thought he was false, but he was actually the true Pope the entire time. So Pope Urban is not considered an anti-pope.

Thanks for the correction!

Nadir · « **Reply #13 on:** February 05, 2017, 03:12:14 PM »

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Nadir
Nobody has the "DUTY" which you descibe, nor the responsibility of judging popes. As Pax vobis says: emotional, illogical, wrong...

You make your decisions for yourself and for no other.

Do you accept everything your "pope" says? Do you resist him at all? Is there any theological difference between the "New Order" of "mass" which Paul VI promulgated and the Traditional Mass?

Your questions are irrelevent to the topic. Your response shows you read into my post what is not there. How do you know I am not a sedevacantist? I am arguing again OP's il-logic not against sedevacantism.

saintbosco13 · « **Reply #14 on:** February 05, 2017, 04:44:21 PM »

Quote from: saintbosco13

Quote from: Nadir
Nobody has the "DUTY" which you descibe, nor the responsibility of judging popes. As Pax vobis says: emotional, illogical, wrong...

You make your decisions for yourself and for no other.

The people in the 14th century had to make a judgment whether Urban or Clement was the true Pope, and after they made that judgment, they followed the Pope of their choice entirely in matters of faith and morals. The sedevacantists are not doing much differently; they're making a judgment on whether Francis is a true Pope, and in their case not following him at all because they don't believe he is true based on prior magisterial statements. The sedevacantist bishops and priests then tell their flocks to stay away. This is normal as we see from this book in 1906.

Also keep in mind that those priests following Pope Clement were otherwise entirely Catholic, and the validity of their orders and Sacraments were not in question. Likewise for the priests and faithful following Pope Urban. The ONLY thing that changed during the Western Schism was that these priests and laypeople on each side were believed to suddenly be following a false Pope. Notice that this alone was enough for those who followed Pope Urban to stay away from the Clementine Masses (and vice versa), even though those masses were VALID. Why? Because by following anyone other than a true Pope it is considered schismatic by definition, and as we know, the Church has always stated it is the duty of every Catholic to avoid schismatics.

The bottom line is, the sedevacantists are reacting the same way as the Catholics did during the Western Schism and should not be faulted for doing so.

This also makes it obvious that this "dogmatic sedevacantism" accusation going around Internet forums, is a novelty. If it weren't, we would see similar examples of it in books before Vatican II, but never have I seen anything similar mentioned anywhere.