The same rules of validity apply to both papacy (which is also the Bishop of Rome) and mere episcopacy.

Acts 1:16-20

Quote

[16] Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: [17] Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. [18] And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. [19] And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. [20] For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.

Acts 1:16-20 seem to suggest sedeprivationism in Judas' office. Judas lacked the Faith before, during and after the institution of the Eucharist, and if one lacks the Faith, then they cannot truly be a Shepherd (Bishop), yet the material act of the Eucharist conferred him only as a material bishop. Thus, the Scripture says, "And his bishopric let another take", and this person was Matthias who assumed his episcopacy, yet wholly due to Matthias also having true Faith.

Discuss...

Acts is quoting Psalm 108.

Deus, laudem meam. David in the person of Christ, prayeth against his persecutors; more especially the traitor Judas: foretelling and approving his just punishment for his obstinacy in sin and final impenitence.

[1] Unto the end, a psalm for David. [2] O God, be not thou silent in my praise: for the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful man is opened against me. [3] They have spoken against me with deceitful tongues; and they have compassed me about with words of hatred; and have fought against me without cause. [4] Instead of making me a return of love, they detracted me: but I gave myself to prayer. [5] And they repaid me evil for good: and hatred for my love.

[6] Set thou the sinner over him: and may the devil stand at his right hand. [7] When he is judged, may he go out condemned; and may his prayer be turned to sin. [8] May his days be few: and his bishopric let another take. [9] May his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. [10] Let his children be carried about vagabonds, and beg; and let them be cast out of their dwellings.

[6] Set thou the sinner over him: Give to the devil, that arch-sinner, power over him: let him enter into him, and possess him. The imprecations, contained in the thirty verses of this psalm, are opposed to the thirty pieces of silver for which Judas betrayed our Lord; and are to be taken as prophetic denunciations of the evils that should befall the traitor and his accomplices the Jєωs; and not properly as curses.

[11] May the usurer search all his substance: and let strangers plunder his labours. [12] May there be none to help him: nor none to pity his fatherless offspring. [13] May his posterity be cut off; in one generation may his name be blotted out. [14] May the iniquity of his fathers be remembered in the sight of the Lord: and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out. [15] May they be before the Lord continually, and let the memory of them perish from the earth:

[16] because he remembered not to shew mercy, [17] But persecuted the poor man and the beggar; and the broken in heart, to put him to death. [18] And he loved cursing, and it shall come unto him: and he would not have blessing, and it shall be far from him. And he put on cursing, like a garment: and it went in like water into his entrails, and like oil in his bones. [19] May it be unto him like a garment which covereth him; and like a girdle with which he is girded continually. [20] This is the work of them who detract me before the Lord; and who speak evils against my soul.

[21] But thou, O Lord, do with me for thy name' s sake: because thy mercy is sweet. Do thou deliver me, [22] for I am poor and needy, and my heart is troubled within me. [23] I am taken away like the shadow when it declineth: and I am shaken off as locusts. [24] My knees are weakened through fasting: and my flesh is changed for oil. [25] And I am become a reproach to them: they saw me and they shaked their heads,

[24] For oil: Propter oleum. The meaning is, my flesh is changed, being perfectly emaciated and dried up, as having lost all its oil or fatness.

[26] Help me, O Lord my God; save me according to thy mercy. [27] And let them know that this is thy hand: and that thou, O Lord, hast done it. [28] They will curse and thou will bless: let them that rise up against me be confounded: but thy servant shall rejoice. [29] Let them that detract me be clothed with shame: and let them be covered with the their confusion as with a double cloak. [30] I will give great thanks to the Lord with my mouth: and in the midst of many I will praise him.

[31] Because he hath stood at the right hand of the poor, to save my soul from persecutors.

(I don't know if that helps or undermines your case, ascent, but thought it might be of interest.)

The quote refers to Psalm 108, which is the Holy Ghost's words in the mouth of Christ against his persecutors, especially Judas.

So even Psalm 108 is talking about Judas. That's the interpretation of the Catholic Church, so that's what it means. Period.

If he had a bishopric, then he was a bishop. Even though he didn't have the Faith. It certainly seems to suggest sedeprivationism.

But also remember that they didn't replace Judas until he was dead. If he had remained alive for another 3 years, would his "place" have been held in the college of the Twelve Apostles? I think it would have.

So this is an argument AGAINST sedevacantism. If he simply "wasn't bishop" they could have replaced him at any time. That's why I often say that the only honest sedevacantists are of the conclavist variety. If you REALLY think he's not the pope, then why do you act as if Pope Francis deserves to sit there for a while? Do you think his "place" should be held until he converts or something? That's the definition of Sedeprivationism.

I don't think many Sedevacantists act as if we're living in an interregnum (time between popes). If they did, they would certainly want to fill that horrible void in the Church hierarchy. After all, it's Catholic dogma that the Catholic Church needs a Pope as her head, to be the vicar of Christ!

In fact, in my opinion a sedevacantist who isn't "conclavist" is holding the same position as the "Recognize and Resist" Catholics they make fun of so much, deriding them as "illogical" and "fence-sitters". What's the difference? Neither one follows the Pope, and neither one acts like Pope Francis doesn't hold the Office.

Note: That's not an insult, because I am recognize-and-resist myself. But I am criticizing their lack of honesty, and their tendency to attack myself (and others like me) for behaving almost EXACTLY as they do.

I don't think many Sedevacantists act as if we're living in an interregnum (time between popes). If they did, they would certainly want to fill that horrible void in the Church hierarchy.

That doesn't necessarily follow.  Most SVs refuse to be conclavists due to the lack of universal consensus that would be required to fill the vacancy; otherwise you have absurdities like Pope Bawden.

Quote from: Matthew

I don't think many Sedevacantists act as if we're living in an interregnum (time between popes). If they did, they would certainly want to fill that horrible void in the Church hierarchy.

That doesn't necessarily follow.  Most SVs refuse to be conclavists due to the lack of universal consensus that would be required to fill the vacancy; otherwise you have absurdities like Pope Bawden.

But they aren't trying very hard to get a consensus either. How many have given the project even a few minutes of thought? How many gave more than 10 minutes thought to which Bishops should/must be invited, or where they live? Who maintains lists of the Pius XII bishops? Etc.

Have they written to ANY bishops or priests, or done anything at all get get us even 1 baby step closer to a conclave to get us a Pope? Or do they believe the Papacy is optional or not necessary for the Catholic Church? Or do they deep-down believe that Pope Francis is Pope?

In the practical order/materially (which is all that I'm concerned with), R&R and non-conclavist sedevacantists are doing about the same thing. They are both "hedging their bets" or whatever you want to call it.

The only difference is, the R&R's have a picture of the Pope in the vestibule, whereas the sedevacantists have a dark rectangle where the picture of the Pope used to be (that part of the paint was shaded by the picture for years, so the paint is darker) -- but nothing put in its place. Both sides go on about their Traditional Catholic lives, and both act as if the current Pope "sorta" has the Papacy, at least enough to prevent another from replacing him.

Of the two, I think R&R is more Catholic, because then I'm not positively deposing a pope -- something only a future council of the Church can do.

And I'm just going with the DEFAULT SETTING for a Catholic. After all, the choice between sedevacantism and its opposite is NOT a Y-turn in the road, where everyone has to pick a direction. No, the choice is more of a straight road, with sedevacantism being a hard right-turn off the main road. It takes a positive action. If you do nothing, you stay on the straight road. Everyone on the straight road (who passed up the right turn) didn't "make a choice" to be non-sedevacantist. They just refused the choice to turn off the road. There's a notable difference.

You don't get to choose the "Pope" or "non-Pope" variety of Catholicism when you are baptized. It's not like smoking/non-smoking in a restaurant. They aren't equal. One is fundamentally different from the other, not just its opposite.

I love how sedevacantists gasp in feigned horror at recognize-and-resisters:

"You say he's the Pope, and you disobey him! tsk-tsk!"

But they'll depose that same pope, and there's no problem.

Sorry, no one is going to tell me that I have to follow a pope even when he reveals a new religion to the world, or attempts to destroy the Church from within. I'm smarter than that. In a word, "Watch me."

"But you risk your salvation"

"Yes, but I risk it less than YOU, who are betting everything on him not being pope at all. In fact, many of you go well beyond the bounds of charity in your treatment of the uncondemned MAN still living in this time of mercy, Pope Francis."

So you can't argue I'm being risky with my salvation. You're going even further!

You can't argue that I have to go to the Novus Ordo if I recognize the Pope. Nope, just watch me! I'm going to be just as Trad as you in all the details.

Not much of a compelling argument to embrace sedevacantism, if you ask me.

Totally agree with both your previous posts.

 
 

Sorry, no one is going to tell me that I have to follow a pope even when he reveals a new religion to the world, or attempts to destroy the Church from within. I'm smarter than that. In a word, "Watch me."

A pope who "reveals a new religion to the world, or attempts to destroy the Church from within" is not a Catholic.  

I don't tsk-tsk you.  I simply cannot understand why you and other anti-sedevacantists don't recognize that.

In practice, we are exactly the same.  Our only differences are in rhetoric.  And while some sedevacantists really do condemn your rhetoric, it is the anti-sedevacantists who more often condemn us for simply saying what we are doing.

Quote from: Matthew

...because then I'm not positively deposing a pope -- something only a future council of the Church can do.

I hate to break it to you, but this is heresy.  A council cannot depose a pope.  The only way the Church could elect a new pope is because she recognizes that the papal claimant has already defected from the faith and has tacitly resigned (if, that is, he ever was the pope).

I have not deposed the pope.  I have merely recognized the situation as it exists in reality.

When one labels themselves and a sedevacantist, they are labeling themselves as one who has personally deposed the pope.

It *is* possible that a *future* council could decree that previous pope(s) were not popes.
And the Church does not elect popes, Cardinals elect popes after a pope dies. That's the only way a new pope is elected by the cardinals while a previous pope is still alive.

A pope who "reveals a new religion to the world, or attempts to destroy the Church from within" is not a Catholic.

I don't tsk-tsk you.  I simply cannot understand why you and other anti-sedevacantists don't recognize that.

In practice, we are exactly the same.  Our only differences are in rhetoric.  And while some sedevacantists really do condemn your rhetoric, it is the anti-sedevacantists who more often condemn us for simply saying what we are doing.

 

But the only difference is *not* in the rhetoric. There is way more to it than that. In fact, there is so much more to it, that SVs have their own priests and chapels, seminaries, schools etc. One of the reasons SVs have their own chapels and etc., is precisely because we do not share the same practice.


"This famous Una cuм of the sedevacantists...ridiculous! ridiculous .... it’s ridiculous, it's ridiculous. In fact it is not at all the meaning of the prayer "- Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, retreat at St-Michel en Brenne, April 1st, 1989
Source