Author Topic: Sedevacantism 101 (Read 3482 times)

Arvinger · « **Reply #20 on:** July 23, 2016, 09:29:43 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: MyrnaM
Not to worry Cantarella, no one is deposing Francis, and that is the problem.

True, this is because it is not possible. The process of deposing the one elected and accepted as pope,

That assumes that Francis was validly elected and accepted - both claims are doubtful at best.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #21 on:** July 25, 2016, 09:01:44 AM »

Quote from: Matto

I have heard this argument so many times that I cannot count from sedevacantists and I think it is a good argument for sedevacantism. But he acts as if this argument ends all debate and proves that sedevacantism is true. I disagree. He does not adress the point which I think is a strong agrument for sedeplenism which is that it is a teaching of the Church that if the whole Church accepts a man as Pope it is proof that he is really the Pope. All of the concilar Popes (especially John XXIII and Paul VI. There were a few thousand sedevacantists who rejected the conciliar Popes I believe starting around the time the Novus Ordo came out but I don't think that there were enough for it to be significant) have been accepted by the whole Church so that should prove that they were and are true Popes. Even today of the billion people who claim to be Catholic all but a few thousand sedevacantists accept Francis, so pretty much the whole Church accepts him.

This is illogical as it would make a valid papacy subjective, dependent on what the people think. Our Lord did not set up a democracy. This is different then when you have two Catholics who claim to be Pope and one is accepted by the vast majority. That is not what makes a man pope. Unless you can show me where it is taught that you can "pope" a public heretic in this manner?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #22 on:** July 25, 2016, 09:04:13 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Matto
Someone saw my post and sent me this via PM:

The citation is from Cardinal Billot, Tractatus De Ecclesia Christi, thesis XXIX, §3

“Finally, whatever one may think of the possibility or the impossibility of an heretical pope, there is at least one point absolutely clear which no one can put in doubt, and it is that the acceptance, the adherence, of the Universal Church to a pope will always be, by itself, the infallible sign of the legitimacy of such-and-such a pontiff; and consequently of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately. Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions ... For this very reason, Alexander VI was not a false Pope, but a legitimate one. Therefore he was not a heretic"

I think we should read the entire final sentence from Cardinal Billot rather than cut it off in the middle:

"Therefore he was not a heretic, at least he was not in the heretical state that, in removing the essential element of membership in the Church, as a consequence of its very nature strips [a man] of pontifical power or of any other ordinary jurisdiction whatsoever."

It seems that the this provides an whole different understanding to the complete thought Cardinal Billot was trying to convey. It's easy to distort what someone says by simply ending the sound byte in the middle.

Another example of the intellectual dishonesty I have repeatedly seen in the R & R and the Feeney camps who stick to their preferred belief above that which the Church teaches.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #23 on:** July 25, 2016, 09:05:52 AM »

Quote from: Sbyvl

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: MyrnaM
Not to worry Cantarella, no one is deposing Francis, and that is the problem.

True, this is because it is not possible. The process of deposing the one elected and accepted as pope, necessarily begins with the Church accusing him, which, because no one can do that, the process to depose a pope can never even get started. It's dead in it's tracks right at the starting line. Most likely, this is why it has never been done or even attempted.

The sedevacantists have a problem which has no solution.

The question now becomes, why is a problem without a solution a problem at all? - or, is a problem without a solution still a problem?

Nobody on Earth can depose a reigning pope.

Correct. When will those in the R & R camp get this? If we can unite around facts instead of wishes we might get somewhere.