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

Author Topic: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism  (Read 13884 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

The Impossibility of Sedevacantism
« on: September 28, 2023, 07:47:15 PM »
For the purpose of this post, I define Sedevacantism as the general belief that the purported Roman pontiff starting from John XXIII or Paul VI, the hierarchy in communion with him, and the people adjoined to them fell into error, or more grievously heresy, in the promulgation of Vatican II resulting in a new “religion” and “ecclesia” in discontinuity with the past and resulting in the immediate loss of office for all ecclesiastics involved and the objective sin, not necessarily culpability, of heresy for non-ecclesiastics.

Here is my argument:

I. Sedevacantists use ordinary (non-definitive or non-ex cathedra) Papal magisterium of varying degrees of authority to posit a discontinuity between pre-conciliar and post-conciliar teachings.

II. Etsi Multa is a generally agreed upon ordinary (non-definitive) Papal encyclical of high authority condemning the Old Catholics.

III. Etsi Multa condemns the Old Catholics for the same premises to which Secevacantists hold: Denial of indefectibility vis a vis the proposition that it is possible for the Roman Pontiff, the Bishops in communion with him, and the people adjoined to them to fall into heresy; denial of the visibility of the Church as a consequence; the consecration of bishops without Papal mandate.

III appendix - “Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the Ecuмenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred. They assert the necessity of restoring a legitimate episcopacy in the person of their pseudo-bishop, who has entered not by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief or robber and calls the damnation of Christ upon his head.”

IV. If the Sedevacantists are right then Etsi Multa was wrong and therefore papal encyclicals of equal weight used to justify departure from Vatican II can also be argued to be wrong.

V. If the Sedevacantists are wrong then they have fallen into grave error, heresy, and schism based on the same principles which they use to justify their departure from the material communion of the Church.

V. Conclusion: Whether or not the Sedevacantists are right or wrong, their ecclesiology fails the test of internal coherency and non-contradiction.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism
« Reply #1 on: September 28, 2023, 07:54:59 PM »
Utterly idiotic.  R&R is Old Catholicism in a nutshell.  It's R&R that adhere to and promote "the proposition that it is possible for the Roman Pontiff, the Bishops in communion with him, and the people adjoined to them to fall into heresy".  You have it absolutely reversed.

But, then, perhaps you're Salza again with a different account that claim that the Conciliar Church has not erred.


Re: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism
« Reply #2 on: September 28, 2023, 07:57:48 PM »
Utterly idiotic.  R&R is Old Catholicism in a nutshell.  It's R&R that adhere to and promote "the proposition that it is possible for the Roman Pontiff, the Bishops in communion with him, and the people adjoined to them to fall into heresy".  You have it absolutely reversed.

Your response does not address any of the points raised in my initial post. All it does is raise an objection against the R&R position while engaging in an implicit exercise of “whataboutism.”

Re: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism
« Reply #3 on: September 28, 2023, 08:02:23 PM »
III. Appendix strengthened by interpretation.

Relatio of Vatican I.

Gasser: “This prerogative granted to Saint Peter by the Lord Jesus Christ was supposed to pass to all Peter’s successors because the chair of Peter is the center of unity in the Church. But if the Pontiff should fall into an error of faith, the Church would dissolve, deprived of the bond of unity. The Bishop of Meaux [French Bishop Auguste Allou] speaks very well on this point, saying: ‘If this Roman See could fall and be no longer the See of truth but of error and pestilence, then the Catholic Church herself would not have the bond of a society and would be schismatic and scattered — which in fact is impossible.’

Gasser: “As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma. For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls pious and probable, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy. To say nothing of the other points, let me say that this is clear from the very words of Bellarmine, both in the citation made by the reverend speaker and also from Bellarmine himself who, in book 4, chapter 6, pronounces on the opinion of Pighius in the following words: ‘It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith.’ From this, it appears that the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion.”

Online Quo vadis Domine

  • Supporter
Re: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism
« Reply #4 on: September 28, 2023, 08:05:39 PM »
I. Sedevacantists use ordinary (non-definitive or non-ex cathedra) Papal magisterium of varying degrees of authority to posit a discontinuity between pre-conciliar and post-conciliar teachings.


Your premise is false. Post conciliar teachings contradict dogmatic beliefs, an example of which is religious liberty.