Author Topic: Stuck in a Rut: Anti-Sedevacantism in the Age of Bergoglio (Read 4712 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #10 on:** June 10, 2015, 05:15:20 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

Quote from: Stubborn
And no, a heretic pope(s) are not just an inconvenience, they have been a fact of life for at least the last +50 years and again, there is nothing anyone can do about it - or if I am wrong, what is there that can be done and who can do it?

It's interesting that you admit the Conciliar popes are heretics. That would not be in line with most R&R (SSPX, etc) positions because most everyone (including Archbishop Lefebvre) understands that a heretic cannot hold an ecclesiastical office. It used to be that the R&R could argue about formal vs. material heresy, etc. But Francis has made it very difficult for the R&R folks because he continues to up the ante.

To quote Fr. Wathen: "No one on earth can prove that the Conciliar Popes have not been anti-Catholic conspirators."

This most assuredly is an undeniable fact. I find it difficult to believe that any trad could possibly deny this.

Equally difficult to believe that there are trad who thinks that we are permitted to do anything about it and that preaching that the pope is not the pope is somehow our responsibility or duty or something.

The fact that SVs do not accept, is that it is not within our right to declare him or his acts devoid of validity. It simply isn't. Though we may know for certain that he has committed sins to which the Church has affixed the sentence of ipso facto excommunication, our knowledge of his sins in no way qualifies us to declare the pope deprived of his office, or never to have been elected. This is the fact that separates SVs from non-SVs. This fact is what seemingly has prompted the separation of many trads.

Quote from: Clemens Maria

It was claimed that the only way to prove formal heresy was for the heretic to come out and say something like "I renounce membership in the Catholic Church" or "I know my position is heretical but I don't care". With the latest revelation it is getting harder and harder to hold that Francis is not a formal heretic. But if he is a formal heretic, Catholic doctrine is quite clear that he is incapable of holding an ecclesiastical office. Lately, instead of saying that the Conciliar pope is not a heretic it has become popular to say that it is necessary for the Church's hierarchy to formally remove the heretic pope before any other member of the Church is permitted to say he is not the pope. In response I quote James Larrabee:

Quote from: James Larrabee
It is also objected (by De Nantes and others) that some legal process is required, before the Pope actually loses office. This seems to imply the grave error of conciliarism. If a council, or any other authority in the Church below the papacy, can carry out a legal action resulting in the Pope's deposition, no matter how explained, it is clear that they are superior to him. Cajetan, who argued this, tried in vain to reconcile it with the Pope's supremacy (which he also firmly maintained). St. Robert Bellarmine refutes his arguments convincingly, and the arguments of John of St. Thomas, attempting to defend Cajetan, make little sense by comparison. (cf. http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=59)

I do understand that there is an official form of an act of heresy and a plain old ordinary form of heresy - both are heresies imo and a person does not need to come out and officially proclaim himself a heretic before I will avoid that person. We know right from wrong and we all know that the pope (or non-pope) is wrong. What we cannot do is anything about it - other than pray for him which far as I know, the SVs refuse to even think about doing.

Quote from: Clemens Maria

You can read the article if you want to know why SVs believe themselves justified in concluding that the Conciliar popes are not true popes.

Nishant has an interesting take on it as well. He says that the universal acceptance of Francis' claim to the papacy is infallible evidence that he is not a formal heretic. I prefer to take Francis at his word.

Francis is as bad as the rest of the conciliar popes - they are all heretics. There is an argument on another thread about that, but for me, call it what you will, I/we cannot submit to anyone - not even the pope - not even an angel of light - if they preach the wrong gospel and by their example and instructions lead us to offend God. We are under no obligation to submit to the pope when those are the circuмstances.

Well, this is a crisis and those are the circuмstances - and under these circuмstances we are under no obligation to subject ourselves to his authority whether he is pope or not. It's really that simple.

Matto · « **Reply #11 on:** June 10, 2015, 05:38:18 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

It's interesting that you admit the Conciliar popes are heretics. That would not be in line with most R&R (SSPX, etc) positions because most everyone (including Archbishop Lefebvre) understands that a heretic cannot hold an ecclesiastical office.

Father Chazal in this conference about sedevacantism admits that Francis is a heretic but then goes on to claim that he does not lose office automatically and he talks about how St. Robert Bellarmine believes that a heretic Pope would automatically cease to be Pope but how other theologians thought otherwise.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #12 on:** June 10, 2015, 06:55:15 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Clemens Maria
It's interesting that you admit the Conciliar popes are heretics. That would not be in line with most R&R (SSPX, etc) positions because most everyone (including Archbishop Lefebvre) understands that a heretic cannot hold an ecclesiastical office.

Father Chazal in this conference about sedevacantism admits that Francis is a heretic but then goes on to claim that he does not lose office automatically and he talks about how St. Robert Bellarmine believes that a heretic Pope would automatically cease to be Pope but how other theologians thought otherwise.

Well yes, but if you read the article by James Larrabee referenced in my previous post you will see that Fr Chazal's position has already been refuted.

Matto · « **Reply #13 on:** June 10, 2015, 07:51:44 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

Well yes, but if you read the article by James Larrabee referenced in my previous post you will see that Fr Chazal's position has already been refuted.

I read your article. It was as expected, the same old arguments again and again. I did find this part of it to be absurd though:

"Along the same lines, the papacy must be accepted by the elected candidate, even if validly elected. Yet it can be argued that the new "popes" from John Paul I onwards did NOT accept the Roman Pontificate, but a new, conciliarist, "updated" papacy, a consitutional monarchy or figurehead office of some sort, or as De Nantes would put it, the headship of MASDU. Thus, they in no way accepted the papacy, nor have they actually exercised it. This was clearly manifested in their mere "installation" rather than in the traditional coronation, and undoubtedly other ways. As for Paul VI, it could easily be said that, if his heresy was not already manifest, he clearly manifested his rejection of the papacy by very publicly and formally removing (permanently) his tiara in the presence, I believe, of the whole council. Given the importance attached to ceremony and external signs and symbols both by reason itself and by the Church in her whole external life, one could hardly imagine a more certain way of resigning the papacy AS TRADITIONALLY UNDERSTOOD than this act. Certainly from that time, the papal authority as instituted by Christ and exercised by 260 pontiffs has no longer been exercised by these "popes." It is precisely this de facto (at least) vacation of papal authority which has laid the Church open to the revolution of the Modernists. (Thus it is clearly the outcome of the Freemasonic plan exposed over 150 years ago, by the Popes themselves.) "

I am not an R&R supporter or a sedevacantist. I say I have doubts about the Popes since John XXIII and leave it at that. I expect the Church to rule officially on the matter after the crisis is over. One of the problems I see with sedevacantism is that anyone can for any reason declare that a Pope is a heretic and therefore ipso facto lost the papacy whenever they disagree with a Pope's teaching. What is the point of infallibility if it can be sidestepped by declaring the Pope to be a heretic and therefore not a Pope.

Charlemagne · « **Reply #14 on:** June 10, 2015, 07:57:12 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

Quote from: Stubborn
And no, a heretic pope(s) are not just an inconvenience, they have been a fact of life for at least the last +50 years and again, there is nothing anyone can do about it - or if I am wrong, what is there that can be done and who can do it?

It's interesting that you admit the Conciliar popes are heretics. That would not be in line with most R&R (SSPX, etc) positions because most everyone (including Archbishop Lefebvre) understands that a heretic cannot hold an ecclesiastical office. It used to be that the R&R could argue about formal vs. material heresy, etc. But Francis has made it very difficult for the R&R folks because he continues to up the ante. It was claimed that the only way to prove formal heresy was for the heretic to come out and say something like "I renounce membership in the Catholic Church" or "I know my position is heretical but I don't care". With the latest revelation it is getting harder and harder to hold that Francis is not a formal heretic. But if he is a formal heretic, Catholic doctrine is quite clear that he is incapable of holding an ecclesiastical office. Lately, instead of saying that the Conciliar pope is not a heretic it has become popular to say that it is necessary for the Church's hierarchy to formally remove the heretic pope before any other member of the Church is permitted to say he is not the pope.

It was much the same before John XXIII and JPII were declared "saints." Before, it was, "The Holy Ghost would never allow a true Pope to declare such men as saints." After it happened, the retort was, "Well, canonizations aren't infallible" or "There must have been a flaw in the process," etc. They just keep moving the goal line.