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 ... 6

Author Topic: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism  (Read 8649 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RandomFish

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Reputation: +15/-18
  • Gender: Male
The Impossibility of Sedevacantism
« on: September 28, 2023, 07:47:15 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!4
    • 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.
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46054
    • Reputation: +27115/-5009
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism
    « Reply #1 on: September 28, 2023, 07:54:59 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.
    Logged

    Offline RandomFish

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 29
    • Reputation: +15/-18
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism
    « Reply #2 on: September 28, 2023, 07:57:48 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Ladislaus 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.

    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.”
    Logged

    Offline RandomFish

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 29
    • Reputation: +15/-18
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism
    « Reply #3 on: September 28, 2023, 08:02:23 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!2
    • 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.”
    Logged

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2896/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism
    « Reply #4 on: September 28, 2023, 08:05:39 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: RandomFish on September 28, 2023, 07:47:15 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. 
    Logged
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline RandomFish

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 29
    • Reputation: +15/-18
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism
    « Reply #5 on: September 28, 2023, 08:08:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!4
    • Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on September 28, 2023, 08:05:39 PM

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

    Please provide proof for your assertion as follows:
    1. That the condemnation of religious liberty is a dogma (divinely revealed article of faith or connected to a dogma such that the denial of it would be a denial of another dogma) under pain of heresy in pre-conciliar teaching.
    2. That Vatican II, or post conciliar doctrine, taught to the contrary.
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46054
    • Reputation: +27115/-5009
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism
    « Reply #6 on: September 28, 2023, 09:15:13 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: RandomFish on September 28, 2023, 07:57:48 PM
    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.”

    It addresses everything about it.  SVism does not hold that there's a discontinuity between Traditional Magisterium and Conciliar "Magisterium," because it holds that the Conciliar Magisterium is illegitimate and bogus, emanating as it does from non-popes, imposter usurpers.  You call out and target SVism, but the criticism pertains to R&R.

    As Vatican I taught, there's on place where human reason factors in with regard to supernatural faith, and that's in ascertaining the credibility of the authority.  Through an intellectual recognition (motivated by grace) that the Catholic Church is the True Church founded by Our Lord, there's a submission made to that authority.  It's very clear that the Conciliar Church is the prophesied Whore of Babylon, the Counter-Church foretold in a massive body of Catholic prophecy.  Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the One True Church of Christ and is a cesspool of heresy.

    Nice try, John.
    Logged

    Offline RandomFish

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 29
    • Reputation: +15/-18
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism
    « Reply #7 on: September 28, 2023, 09:22:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on September 28, 2023, 09:15:13 PM
    It addresses everything about it.  SVism does not hold that there's a discontinuity between Traditional Magisterium and Conciliar "Magisterium," because it holds that the Conciliar Magisterium is illegitimate and bogus, emanating as it does from non-popes, imposter usurpers.  You call out and target SVism, but the criticism pertains to R&R.

    As Vatican I taught, there's on place where human reason factors in with regard to supernatural faith, and that's in ascertaining the credibility of the authority.  Through an intellectual recognition (motivated by grace) that the Catholic Church is the True Church founded by Our Lord, there's a submission made to that authority.  It's very clear that the Conciliar Church is the prophesied Whore of Babylon, the Counter-Church foretold in a massive body of Catholic prophecy.  Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the One True Church of Christ and is a cesspool of heresy.

    Nice try, John.

    Sedevacantism only posits that they are usurpers, illegitimate, et al. and non-popes because of a perceived discontinuity in teaching. I think you and I both would agree that if the Sedevacantists perceived the post-conciliar Popes as entirely orthodox, there would be little to no question of their legitimacy as regards election (especially John XXIII and Paul VI).

    As for your second point, that’s beyond the scope of the topic pertaining to my initial post.
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46054
    • Reputation: +27115/-5009
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism
    « Reply #8 on: September 28, 2023, 09:25:25 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
    • Argumentum Ad Absurdum

    According to Salzarianism, Joe Biden, Nancy Peℓσѕι, and Jorge Bergoglio are Catholics, whereas Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer, and Archbishop Thuc were outside the Church.

    According to Salzarianism, St. Athanasius and the anti-Arian bishops who went around consecrating bishops for dioceses that had had their episcopal sees usurped by Arians, were schismatics (lacking "mission") outside the Church, while the Arian heretic bishops were inside the Church.

    Q.E.D.
    Logged

    Offline RandomFish

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 29
    • Reputation: +15/-18
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism
    « Reply #9 on: September 28, 2023, 09:31:08 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on September 28, 2023, 09:25:25 PM
    Argumentum Ad Absurdum

    According to Salzarianism, Joe Biden, Nancy Peℓσѕι, and Jorge Bergoglio are Catholics, whereas Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer, and Archbishop Thuc were outside the Church.

    According to Salzarianism, St. Athanasius and the anti-Arian bishops who went around consecrating bishops for dioceses that had had their episcopal sees usurped by Arians, were schismatics (lacking "mission") outside the Church, while the Arian heretic bishops were inside the Church.

    Q.E.D.

    Strawman argument.

    The topic does not address the question of church membership; only the inconsistency of sedevacantist conclusions reached from contradictory and mutually exclusive foundations.

    The sedevacantist must choose one of the following to remain consistent:
    1. The Catholic Church is false.
    2. Ordinary Papal magisterium is reversible and as such can be incorrect.

    There is no other option.
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46054
    • Reputation: +27115/-5009
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism
    « Reply #10 on: September 28, 2023, 09:34:22 PM »
  • Thanks!5
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: RandomFish on September 28, 2023, 09:22:12 PM
    Sedevacantism only posits that they are usurpers, illegitimate, et al. and non-popes because of a perceived discontinuity in teaching.

    That's not correct.  SVism holds that they are usurpers, illegitimate, etc. because the Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the One True Church of Christ, and the papacy is protected by the Holy Ghost from substantially altering the Church into something that lacks these marks.

    We have a corrupt Magisterium, an entirely novel and non-Catholic system of theology (not just a few isolated statement in Vatican II), a novel non-Catholic ecclesiology where the schismatic and heretical "Churches" can be part of the Church of Christ, a complete and consistent rejection of EENS dogma (culminating in Jorge's recent declaration of schismatic "martyrs", verbatim contradicting the teaching of the Council of Florence that there can be no salvation outside the Church even if one were to shed his blood for Christ), the promotion of religious indifferentism.

    We have a "Mass" that differs not a lick from Cranmer's abomination and is consistent with Luther's butchery of the Catholic Mass, complete with a replacement of the Catholic Offertory (which Luther hated with a passion), replacing it with a тαℓмυdic "table blessing".

    We have masses of obviously bogus canonizations, and popes are also prevented by the Holy Ghost from issuing bogus canonizations.

    There's nothing in the Conciliar Church that resembles the mark of "Holiness" nor "Oneness", as there as as many heresies floating out there as there are Conciliar bishops.  Jorge promotes the heretics and Modernists and punishes the relatively-faithful bishops like Strickland.

    If St. Pius X had been time-warped forward to today and been shown the Conciliar Church, would he have recognized it as the Catholic Church had he not been told that it was?  Absolutely not.  Ergo, the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church.  It's as simple as that, and one need not have a degree in theology to dissect the propositions of Vatican II.  Simple faithful can see that.  When I first became a Traditional Catholic, I read a book by St. Alphonsus Liguori and realized, without any theological analysis, that the faith this man exhibits in his books is not the same faith and the same religion that the Conciliar Church puts into practice.
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46054
    • Reputation: +27115/-5009
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism
    « Reply #11 on: September 28, 2023, 09:38:49 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: RandomFish on September 28, 2023, 09:31:08 PM
    Strawman argument.

    The topic does not address the question of church membership; only the inconsistency of sedevacantist conclusions reached from contradictory and mutually exclusive foundations.

    The sedevacantist must choose one of the following to remain consistent:
    1. The Catholic Church is false.
    2. Ordinary Papal magisterium is reversible and as such can be incorrect.

    There is no other option.

    That's the absurd strawman and false dilemma.  SVism chooses neither.  #2 admits of nuances but is actually a product of R&R and NOT sedevacantism.  This is the second time that you've falsely attributed an R&R position to sedevacantism.  And this false dilemma rests upon several layers of petitio principii where you beg the question.

    As for #2, distinguo.  Not everything in the Ordinary Papal Magisterium is infallible and irreversible.  Your statement is way too generic.  YOU talk about strawmen?

    And there's no strawman here.  Salza stated in an interview that Joe Biden is a Catholic while holding that Traditional Catholics are not Catholics.  Where's the strawman, John?
    Logged

    Offline RandomFish

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 29
    • Reputation: +15/-18
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism
    « Reply #12 on: September 28, 2023, 09:42:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on September 28, 2023, 09:34:22 PM
    That's not correct.  SVism holds that they are usurpers, illegitimate, etc. because the Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the One True Church of Christ, and the papacy is protected by the Holy Ghost from substantially altering the Church into something that lacks these marks.

    While the marks of the church are somewhat relevant to an aspect of the discussion at hand, they are ultimately ancillary. Sedevacantism would not exist even if the majority of the bishops and priests were heretics  proposing novelties along what you mentioned, but the Pope was orthodox and a stalwart defender of the Faith as understood by the sedevacantists.

    As to the rest of what you mentioned, most of the early Church Fathers would not have recognized what the medieval church let alone the Tridentine church of St. Pius V or the Ultramontane church of Pope Pius IX. The Church developed substantially since the early centuries. In fact, that’s precisely the whole point of the original Protestant movement. It is to cast away all of the Roman accretions and return or perhaps restore the apostolic identity as they perceive it. Hence irrelevant to the discussion and not very effective point.
    Logged

    Offline RandomFish

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 29
    • Reputation: +15/-18
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism
    « Reply #13 on: September 28, 2023, 09:50:58 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on September 28, 2023, 09:38:49 PM
    That's the absurd strawman and false dilemma.  SVism chooses neither.  #2 admits of nuances but is actually a product of R&R and NOT sedevacantism.  This is the second time that you've falsely attributed an R&R position to sedevacantism.  And this false dilemma rests upon several layers of petitio principii where you beg the question.

    As for #2, distinguo.  Not everything in the Ordinary Papal Magisterium is infallible and irreversible.  Your statement is way too generic.  YOU talk about strawmen?

    And there's no strawman here.  Salza stated in an interview that Joe Biden is a Catholic while holding that Traditional Catholics are not Catholics.  Where's the strawman, John?

    I agree there are nuances that can be granted to #2.

    Under such nuances, sedevacantists would have to concede that the questionable doctrines which they use to reject the legitimacy of Vatican II have no basis in revealed religion in the sense understood by their own principles. There are no dogmas pertaining to freedom of religion as understood in the modern era, nor are there directly revealed dogmas related to ecuмenism as understood in its moderate sense propounded in the council docuмents, nor are there barriers to ecclesiastical communion outside the Church (as evidenced by the Sedevacantist rejection of Feeneyism and employment of ecclesiology which allows for Protestants, Jєωs, Muslims, and pagans to be saved which even Lefebvre and modern Sedevacantist bishops like Sanborn believe). Therefore, there is no discontinuity in matters essential. Thusly, the rejection of Vatican II and its promulgators is incoherent for Sedevacantists.
    Logged

    Offline Yeti

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4047
    • Reputation: +2387/-522
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Impossibility of Sedevacantism
    « Reply #14 on: September 28, 2023, 11:18:17 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • The Vatican 2 church certainly violates teachings that were taught dogmatically.

    The consecration of the wine in the Novus Ordo Mass says "pro omnibus" where Scripture says "pro multis". Now, every word of Scripture is de fide. Therefore the Novus Ordo contradicts Scripture. And that's before you get into the question of the sacrament being made invalid thereby.

    The Council of Trent defined dogmatically: "Canon 9. If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only;[28] or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ,[29] let him be anathema."

    The Novus Ordo goes against the underlined parts. (And the expression "Let him be anathema" means the condemnation is dogmatic and de fide.)

    Adultery has always been taught dogmatically to be a mortal sin. Receiving Holy Communion in mortal sin has always been taught dogmatically to be a mortal sin. But in Amoris Laetitia it says that adulterers can receive Holy Communion.

    False worship has always been taught to be a mortal sin and a violation of the 1st commandment. Now, the 1st commandment is de fide. Christians in the early Church died glorious martyrdoms rather than sacrifice to a pagan deity. And yet the people you claim are the pope have all worshiped in false rites many times each, with pagans, Muslims, Jєωs, animists, Buddhists, etc.

    Vatican 2 teaches that schismatics, heretics et al. are "in partial communion" with the Catholic Church. This contradicts the words of the Nicene Creed: "I believe in ... the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." If the Church is one, it cannot be partially in non-Catholic sects.

    Dignitatis Humanae in Vatican 2 contradicts the Syllabus of Errors almost verbatim.

    This is just off the top of my head, but these are just a few of the numerous ways in which the Vatican 2 church contradicts dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church and therefore must be a false religion.
    Logged
    Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
    « previous next »