Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Author Topic: ST. VINCENT FERRER WAS NEVER A SEDEVACANTIST: True Story of Vincent and Benedict  (Read 1620 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: ST. VINCENT FERRER WAS NEVER A SEDEVACANTIST: True Story of Vincent and Benedict
« Reply #10 on: June 12, 2021, 11:01:15 AM »
Quote from: RomanTheo on June 12, 2021, 06:55:00 AM

Now, for reasons that will become clear below, it is important to note that the axiom ‘a doubtful pope is not the pope’, does not mean a pope whose legitimacy is doubtful cannot be the true Pope objectively – or cannot be the pope quoad se (‘of himself’).  This is evident from the fact that during the Great Western Schism there was always a legitimate pope (quoad se), even though all the legitimate popes during the years of the schism, as well as the Antipopes, were all “doubtful popes” (quoad nos).  What the axiom means is that a pope who is ‘doubtful’ according to human judgment (quoad nos) is considered to not be the Pope, and can licitly be treated as such. For this reason, St. Bellarmine more accurately phrases the axiom as “a doubtful pope is considered no pope at all.” [7]

This is disputed.  Some theologians hold that the See was in fact vacant even quoad se.  Church has never officially ruled on the matter.  I forget where I saw the citation, but it was in the works of the same theologian who wrote that even in the case of a reigning Antipope or a vacancy, jurisdiction would continue to be transmitted through "color of title".

Now, I also hold that there was a Pope quoad se, but the Pope was more in an "impounded" state where he had no authority ... along the lines of Father Chazal's principles.  So that position would be somewhere in between these two.

Bottom line is that the principles involved are disputed among theologians.  At the end of the day, I don't care whether one follows Bellarmine or Cajetan or John of St. Thomas or anywhere in between.  I don't care if someone would believe that Paul VI was replaced by a double.  ALL THAT MATTERS to me is that it is totally contrary to ALL CATHOLIC THEOLOGIANS to assert that the evils of Vatican II could have possibly emanated from legitimate papal authority, for that would be tantamount to declaring that the Church can defect.  THAT is the issue with many articulations of R&R, the corollary that legitimate papal authority can lead the entire Church into error, promulgate a Rite of Mass that's displeasing to God and harmful to faith and cannot in good conscience be attended by the faithful, that the faithful must sever communion with the Holy See in order to remain Catholic.  THAT opinion is anathema.  Too much ink has been spilled on the highly debated question of what happens to a heretic pope, since it's permissible to hold a wide array of opinions on the matter.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: ST. VINCENT FERRER WAS NEVER A SEDEVACANTIST: True Story of Vincent and Benedict
« Reply #11 on: June 12, 2021, 11:10:08 AM »
Quote from: RomanTheo on June 12, 2021, 07:02:00 AM
From the article:

Steven Speray: "St. Vincent Ferrer, a Dominican highly educated in the Faith, became a sedevacantist by his own judgment against his friend, Pope Benedict XIII. He knew his Faith, and he put it into practice. St. Vincent Ferrer, pray for us!”

John Lane: "St. Vincent Ferrer was a practical and theoretical “sedevacantist,” who "judged" a pope (that is, judged the validity of the claim of a man to the papacy), and found him wanting, and then rejected him."

In a sense, during that time, everybody relied on "private" judgment to determine who was and was not a legitimate pope.  It's not unlike the situation today, where people have to decide whether to stick with the Conciliar Church, align with an FSSP, align with an SSPX, go with the Resistance, or go with the sedevacantists.  There are in fact many similarities here.

It's only during a time of Universal Peaceful Acceptance that the popes are accepted by more than private judgement, that there's a certainty of faith regarding who the legitimate Pope is.  But the Great Western schism is a perfect example of where this UPA was lacking, and it is my opinion that it is lacking today.  Absent UPA, the only alternative is private judgment.

So those who hold there's no UPA today can rightly make the assertion that St. Vincent judged the status of the papacy based on private judgment and that a similar situation applies today.  Given the confusion at the time, he could just as well have concluded that none of them were legit as having concluded that any one of them were legit ... and all of it would have been with private judgment.  Whether or not St Vincent concluded that the See was vacant is not actually all that relevant.  Even if he concluded that X, Y, or Z was the legitimate pope, that was on the basis of his private judgment.  So this is really the wrong argument to be having.  In other words, I don't really care about this debate.  Really the only argument is whether UPA applies today, and it is my opinion that it decidedly does not (for reasons I've articulated elsewhere).
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: ST. VINCENT FERRER WAS NEVER A SEDEVACANTIST: True Story of Vincent and Benedict
« Reply #12 on: June 12, 2021, 11:18:53 AM »
So in reading all the bluster in the OP, the only actual argument against Lane, which could be summed up in one sentence (the rest of the article being just chaff) is that in the episode cited by Lane, St. Vincent merely READ someone else's decree rather than express his own opinion.  Meh.  Presumably St. Vincent would not have read it if he felt that it would have been schismatic for them to make that declaration.  Six of one, half dozen of the other.  Too bad this guy wasted so much of his time writing this stupid article.

It's just like Salza and Siscoe having spent nearly a thousand pages to claim that in effect Bellarmine held the exact same position as Cajetan ... even though no other Catholic theologian has expressed that opinion, and Bellarmine HIMSELF explicitly rejected Cajetan's opinion, evidently unaware that he held the same position.

What a colossal waste of time.  This is a disputed matter and will not be resolved by any book.

What's at issue really is whether the Catholic Church can defect.
Logged

Offline Geremia

Re: ST. VINCENT FERRER WAS NEVER A SEDEVACANTIST: True Story of Vincent and Benedict
« Reply #13 on: June 12, 2021, 01:53:50 PM »
Often we hear about St. Vincent et al. supporting one pope (Clement VII, Avignon pope) and St. Catherine of Siena et al. supporting another (Urban VI, Roman pope), both elected in 1378 (cf. this table). But St. Vincent's sedevacantist period began in 1416, when he disavowed himself of his friend Cdl. Pedro de Luna, elected Benedict XIII in 1394, of whom the saint was his confessor. St. Vincent died in 1419.

Some references:

St. Vincent wrote his Tractatus de moderno ecclesie scismate in 1380. The most recent biography of the saint, Daileader's Saint Vincent Ferrer, His World and Life: Religion and Society in Late Medieval Europe (2016), describes the Tractatus on p. 22:
Quote
Vincent asked first whether, in a time of schism, it was necessary to accept a single true pope or whether one could accept both or neither. Having established in his response to the first question that one must accept either Urban or Clement as pope, Vincent then posed the second question, namely, which of the two men elected by the College of Cardinals was the true pope. Having established that Clement’s election alone was valid, Vincent then asked whether this truth had to be preached and revealed to the Christian people. To each of these three major questions, the friar assigned five additional questions. Vincent answered all 15 questions within a scholastic framework: he posed his answer; cited his rational arguments (rationes) and his authorities (chiefly Aquinas, named on several occasions, and the Bible, with some references to Augustine and Aristotle); raised objections to his own arguments; and then rebutted the objections.

Ch. 9 ¶¶21-23 of Andrew Pradel, O.P.'s 1863 St. Vincent Ferrer: Angel of the Judgment explains why St. Vincent can be considered a sedevacantist:
Quote
…the King of Aragon detached himself from his obedience to Benedict XIII, and from that moment the cause of the union was accomplished.

The King’s edict was published on the 6th of January, 1416.

Our Saint spent the beginning of the year in traveling through many provinces of Aragon to withdraw the people from obedience to Benedict XIII, and to attach them to that of the Council of Constance, an undertaking by no means easy considering the long period in which those countries had lived under the spiritual dominion of Peter de Luna. But to all their prejudices the Saint opposed solid reasons, which carried conviction to every mind. In a short time, Spain, as well as Italy and the rest of Christendom, awaited with submission the choice of the Council of Constance, ready to acknowledge the elect of the Council as the veritable Vicar of Jesus Christ.
But St. Vincent refused to attend the Council of Constance and disagreed with its outcome, the election of Martin V! St. Vincent never publicly recognized Martin V or the Council of Constance (Daileader pp. 168-76). Thus, the great saintly logician just kept preaching repentance. This is certainly a great lesson for us today.

Daileader p. 172:
Quote
Then there are Vincent’s sermons, which similarly indicate that Vincent never accepted the Council of Constance’s legitimacy or authority. Extant sermons datable to the years 1415–1419 are fewer than sermons datable to the years 1411–1414. Nonetheless, they do exist. One searches them and Vincent’s undated sermons in vain for passages in which he advised his listeners to follow his example and submit themselves to the authority of the Council of Constance, as Gerson would have it, or urged his listeners to pray for Pope Martin V, the one and only true pope, as the canonization witness Bourdiec would have it. Instead, after January 6, 1416, Vincent said little about the schism, and what little he said indicates his continued rejection of the Council of Constance. On June 4, 1417—a date known through his reference to the age of Antichrist—and now in France, Vincent told his listeners that the schism had lasted nearly 40 years (ja ha prop de .XL. anys que dura lo cisma) and that presently there were three [anti]popes in the world: John, Gregory, and Benedict.42 [Sermons 1:208 (June 4, 1417).] For Vincent to assert on June 4, 1417, that there were three [anti]popes in the world was both stupefying and revealing. The Council of Constance had deposed John XXIII and Gregory XII fully two years earlier; Vincent had read aloud the Spanish subtraction 18 months earlier; the Council of Constance was still in session. Vincent mentioned none of these facts. The only concession that the friar made to changed circuмstances was this: unlike earlier in Spain, he did not follow up his observation that there were three [anti]popes in the world with the even more provocative proclamation that, of the three, Benedict was the legitimate one. But there were still three [anti]popes. For Vincent, preaching in France in June 1417, the Council of Constance had done nothing to change the status of these three. The deposing of even Benedict’s rivals was illegitimate.

Just as significantly, Vincent passed over obvious opportunities to proclaim his acceptance of the Council of Constance or Martin V. …

(original source)
Logged

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
Re: ST. VINCENT FERRER WAS NEVER A SEDEVACANTIST: True Story of Vincent and Benedict
« Reply #14 on: June 12, 2021, 01:57:46 PM »
Wow.

Once again, the truth is rarely "simple".

Especially impressive was this part:


Quote
Vincent then asked whether this truth had to be preached and revealed to the Christian people. To each of these three major questions, the friar assigned five additional questions. Vincent answered all 15 questions within a scholastic framework: he posed his answer; cited his rational arguments (rationes) and his authorities (chiefly Aquinas, named on several occasions, and the Bible, with some references to Augustine and Aristotle); raised objections to his own arguments; and then rebutted the objections.

If only more Trads -- whatever their position -- were this rational.

So even if he were wrong, he wouldn't be culpable of anything.

Modern-day Trads, however, anathematize each other in pure fits of emotion, fancying themselves a modern-day St. Vincent at worst ("He was a saint and he backed the wrong pope.")

So what if lack of charity, giving in to emotions (especially anger) in matters of Catholic theology polemics is NOT blameless. St. Vincent Ferrer was canonized, yes, but he didn't do that.

Interesting.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
« previous next »