Author Topic: Sedevacantism OK as opinion,but not fact?? (Read 4804 times)

Deliveringit · « **on:** September 08, 2011, 05:19:59 PM »

I've heard some Benedict XVI defenders claim that even though he has made statements that apparently are not in line with Catholic teaching, that its OK because its his own "personal opinion".

So, is sedevacantism in regards to the last 5 Papal claimants allowed as long as it remains one's "personal opinion" as a possibility, but not as a fact? In other words, if a Catholic doesn't claim as a fact that Benedict XVI is an anti-pope, but instead only holds a personal theological opinion that there is a possibility that he may not be a true Catholic Pope, then is that allowed?

By the way, I am not a sedevacantist. I accept Benedict XVI as the true Pope.

s2srea · « **Reply #1 on:** September 08, 2011, 05:26:53 PM »

Deliver- welcome! :farmer:

Though you are welcome to seek truth on these boards here at CI, strongly I suggest you consult your priest/ spiritual advisor for an issue as serious and debated as this. You may get discouraged with the confusion and debate that may seem to follow my friend.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #2 on:** September 08, 2011, 05:33:10 PM »

If he really is not the Pope (if one believes he is a manifest heretic one is forced to conclude this), then obviously the "opinion" is more than "okay."

It's clear a lot of believing Catholics believe he must be Pope because the alternative is unimaginable to them.

Is it possible for people of good will to be on both sides of the issue? Yes, but only one position can be right.

In any case, those who are seriously concerned for the salvation of their souls according to traditional Catholic doctrine would not trust Benedict XVI's teachings or disciplines.

roscoe · « **Reply #3 on:** September 08, 2011, 06:31:32 PM »

Benedict is an anti-pope and I pity the poor souls that can't see it.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #4 on:** September 08, 2011, 08:53:16 PM »

Benedict's statements are more than personal opinions. They're considered teachings, and teachings from the Pope must be in-line with the teachings of the Church. I believe Benedict is a heretic, but do not call myself a sede for the same reason(s) s2srea and Daegus do. So yes, it's ok to not hold the sedevacantist thesis as a fact, but remain open to the possibility.

Gregory I · « **Reply #5 on:** September 08, 2011, 10:46:54 PM »

roscoe, I am confused, are you a SEDE, or not? Or an impedist? Clearly an antipope is no pope. Do you then hold that there is a legitimate and lawful hierarchy in eclipse?

roscoe · « **Reply #6 on:** September 08, 2011, 11:02:16 PM »

Gregory I · « **Reply #7 on:** September 09, 2011, 01:40:16 AM »

Can you indicate for me something from some theologians that says the indefectability of the church is bound up with the indefectability of the clergy of Rome?

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #8 on:** September 09, 2011, 03:48:37 AM »

On the contrary!

Franzelin:

Quote

"From this can be understood the distinction in the condition of the Church herself in the time of the *vacancy of the See* and the time of the *occupation of the See* [sedis plenae], namely that in the former time, a successor of Peter, the visible rock and visible head of the Church, *is owed* to the vacant Apostolic See by divine right or law but *does not yet exist*; in the time of the occupation of the See he now *actually sits* by divine right. It is most important to consider the very root of the whole life of the Church, by which I mean the indefectibility and infallible custody of the deposit of the faith. Certainly there remains in the Church not only indefectibility *in believing* (called passive infallibility) but also infallibility *in proclaiming* the truth already revealed and already sufficiently proposed for Catholic belief, even while she is for a time bereaved of her visible head, so that neither the whole body of the Church in its belief, nor the whole Episcopate in its teaching, can depart from the faith handed down and fall into heresy, because this permanence of the Spirit of truth in the Church, the kingdom and spouse and body of Christ, is included in the very promise and institution of the indefectibility of the Church *for all days* even to the consummation of the world. The same is to be said, by the same reasoning, for the unity of communion against a universal schism, as for the truth of the faith against heresy. For the divine law and promise of perpetual succession in the See of Peter, as the root and center of Catholic unity, remains; and to this law and promise correspond, on the part of the Church, not only the right and duty of, but also indefectibility in, legitimately procuring and receiving the succession and in keeping the unity of communion with the Petrine See even when vacant, in view of the successor who is awaited and will indefectibly come ... " (op. cit., p. 221-223)

Van Noort:

Quote

The imperishability of the Roman Church simply means one thing: God will see to it that there will never be completely lacking in or from that region [meaning Rome] a group of the faithful united to their Bishop

Wilhelm-Scannell:

Quote

The Indefectibility of the Teaching Body is at the same time a condition and a consequence of the Indefectibility of the Church. A distinction must, however, be drawn between the Indefectibility of the Head and the Indefectibility of the subordinate members. The individual who is the Head may die, but the authority of the Head does not die with him – it is transmitted to his successor. On the other hand, the Teaching Body as a whole could not die or fail without irreparably destroying the continuity of authentic testimony.

As far as I see it, there is a problem for either side.

Deliveringit · « **Reply #9 on:** September 09, 2011, 09:40:12 AM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

As far as I see it, there is a problem for either side.

Maybe you could explain why you see it as a problem for both sides, and this time do it by speaking in layman's terms. In other words, dumb it down a little because I can make heads or tails from what your last post was trying to get at.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #10 on:** September 09, 2011, 03:36:20 PM »

I will say this: Anyone who trusts Benedict should read this quote of his:

From Joseph Ratzingers book The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood pgs 87-88
"...there is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today. One could say the same for the relationship to the seperated Churches of the east. It is obvious that the old category of "heresy" is no longer of any value. Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith fulfilling a positive function the conclusion is inescapable then... Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true place as yet to be determined."

PartyIsOver221 · « **Reply #11 on:** September 09, 2011, 03:39:55 PM »

SS, thanks for posting that. It is utterly remarkable in how apparent a heretic can talk and yet all will keep nodding their heads and following him as if he were the Pope.

SS you made a specific section in that quote bold, but really the gem is after that bold "heresy" remark.

Ugh... just UGH!!!

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #12 on:** September 09, 2011, 03:43:54 PM »

Thanks, PIO. I'd bold the remark he made after the heresy comment, but it's too late to edit it. Oh well, people can still read it clear as day. Yet you will still have those who label him as Traditional. Please, he's not even close...

Deliveringit · « **Reply #13 on:** September 10, 2011, 09:14:38 PM »

I had posted this same thread in Catholic Answers Forum and they shut it down, here is the message they sent me.........

Re: You have received an infraction at Catholic Answers Forums
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Casey
Dear HolyBeThyName,

You have received an infraction at Catholic Answers Forums.

Reason: Agenda posting
-------
This constitutes agenda posting. The pope is not to be placed on trial on this forum.
-------

This infraction is worth 10 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=8343048
Quote:
You guys keep saying that Benedict XVI hasn't said anything which is at odds with Church teaching and are asking me for examples, so I'll give one recent example. Is it not true that Benedict XVI made the case in his most recent book, "Jesus of Nazareth", that the Church doesn't have a mandate to pursue the conversion of Jєωs or at least no longer has that role? Every Catholic scholar and Priest I've spoken to has told me that it is De Fide Church teaching that the Church has always had a mandate to pursue the conversion of the Jєωs. Now these same scholars and priests excuse Benedict XVI's statements by saying that he was only expressing his "personal opinion" and that Benedict XVI's "personal opinions" are not binding on any Catholic. They apparently see no problem with someone expressing a theological view, even if it is at odds with Church teaching, just as long as it is one's "personal opinion".

So, that is why I asked if its OK for a Catholic to hold the theological "personal opinion" that Benedict XVI possibly is not a true Pope, as long as that Catholic doesn't state his opinion as being a "Fact".

If a Catholic can't hold such "personal opinions" that may or may not conflict with some teaching of the Church, then why does Benedict XVI get a pass ? Why is he able to get away with stating his "personal opinions" and its said to be OK even if it goes against some Church teaching, but someone who has the "personal opinion" that Benedict XVI may possibly not be a true Pope cannot state his "opinion" publicly without being condemned as a schismatic?
All the best,
Catholic Answers Forums

This is my response to Catholic Answers Forum....

First off, I am not a sedevacantist. I accept Pope Benedict XVI as being my Pope. Secondly, I apologize if you thought I created a thread attacking Pope Benedict XVI, but that was not my intention. Thirdly, its not Pope Benedict XVI that I have placed on trial in this thread, but instead the Catholic who holds to the "personal opinion" that Benedict XVI might possibly not be a true Pope, but doesn't state his "opinion" as being a "fact". Surely you at CatholicAnswersForum can see that.

Infact, didn't your own Catholic apologist, Mr Aiken, defend Benedict XVI in regards to the Pope's comments on the Jєωs? Wasn't one of the arguments he made in favor of Benedict XVI was that even if the Pope was in error, then its OK since its the Pope's "personal opinion" and therefore not official Church teaching which is binding on anyone? So I don't exactly see the problem with expounding on this in asking a theological question. But again, I am sorry if you took it wrongly.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #14 on:** September 10, 2011, 09:27:09 PM »

"Agenda posting"? That place is lame. There's no winning over there.