What is the theology behind those on this forum who hold that Francis is a valid pope? I noticed that Sedevacantists explained their position very well, but have not so far read an argument from the Sedeplenists on this question.

Perhaps someone could explain it for me.

You see, we couldn't possibly have a 50 year interregnum.

YWIA.

So what is the argument EXACTLY? o_O

So what is the argument EXACTLY? o_O

Not everyone has a good arguement. There are some bad ones.

Some argue that Bergolio and co. are the lawful hierarchy because they believe it would be an end to apostolic succession if it were not so.

Some argue that if he isn't the pope we wouldn't have bishops with jurisdiction and it essentially would be an end of the hierarchy. Also, there would be no way to elect a pope.

Of course there are counter arguments on the sede vacantist side which answer these. In truth, neither side knows how the crisis will be resolved, it still doesn't mean it is any less of a crisis and it certainly doesn't make Bergoglio pope.

That said, I don't think they are airtight, they are just the best and most logical out of the bunch.

There are a lot of respectable, knowledgeable people who accept Bergoglio's claim. I'm sure they will chime in at some point and explain themselves better than I can do for them.

What is the theology behind those on this forum who hold that Francis is a valid pope? I noticed that Sedevacantists explained their position very well, but have not so far read an argument from the Sedeplenists on this question.

Perhaps someone could explain it for me.

It is actually quite simple. Since there is no tribunal within the Church with the right to pass judgment against him, he cannot be removed from his office, even though he be under censure, and, according to the law, have no right to function as the head of the Church. We, his subjects, are not permitted to do anything about this. It is not within our right to declare his acts devoid of validity, due to his having been expelled from his office.

Yes, the faithful may know well that he has committed a sin to which a censure
is affixed by the Church, but this knowledge in no way qualifies them to declare him deprived of his office, or never to have been elected, regardless of the position taken by proponents of the SV opinion.

While it may be true that some of the Fathers and some papal teachings have taught that any cleric who is or was known to have deviated from the faith cannot hold any office including the office of Pope - it is likewise true that we are taught exactly what it is that we can do about it - and declaring him to not be the pope is not it.


As Fr. Wathen puts it:
.....However, even though the hierarchy cannot take legal action against an heretical pope, all of them together, or any one of them in particular, can condemn his teaching; they can accuse him before God's tribunal, warn him of his sins, and remind him of the divine wrath. Should this measure fail to produce any correction, they can denounce him before his subjects, the Catholic faithful, and warn them that they are not to listen to his teaching. Indeed, not only may the prelates of the Church do this, they have a most serious obligation to do it, an obligation which is as grave as the heresies are pernicious and scandalous. And if they fail to do this, they become a party to the pope's crimes, and will most certainly share in his punishment.

Moreover, where the bishops default in their solemn duty to protect the Church and God's Little Sheep, the priests and the laypeople have not the right, but the duty, to raise their voices against an heretical pontiff. They not only raise their voices to God in prayer for the misguided man, but they also speak out to the bishops and the priests, and among themselves so as to warn their brothers and sisters in Christ that the plague of heresy has infected even their Holy Father, and has rendered him dangerous and unclean. - From his book:  Who Shall Ascend?

I must pray and do research on this matter, and will not return until then.

I would argue that searching on this site for previous discussions would help immensely.  

Quote from: soulguard

I must pray and do research on this matter, and will not return until then.

Good for you!

Something that, IMO, presents a stronger argument against sedevacantism   that I think you will find useful is the Encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo.

In the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as celebrated by sedevacantist priests and bishops, they omit praying for the person recognized by the rest of the world as the pope by omitting his name in the Canon of the Mass, yet Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo explicitly condemns the practice more than once, for example, in one place he teaches:"It is generally agreed that those who do not for any reason recall the memory of the Apostolic pontiff in the course of the sacred mysteries according to custom are, as the blessed Pelagius teaches, separated from the communion of the entire world" (de Divinis Officiis, bk. 1, chap. 12).

In Fr. Wathen's words:
".......This Sedevacantism is your opinion. But the Mass not yours, and I know you do not have the right to change a word of it. I have heard you say the same thing about those who brought in the New Mass. And now this is what you have done!......."

If indeed it be the case that the omission of the name of the pope from the Canon of the Mass - as Ex Quo literally states, "for any reason" is in fact  condemned, then sedevacantists, IMO have no leg to stand on.

 

If the Pope is not the Pope then it appears that removing "the pope" from the prayers is not applicable.  So it all goes back to whether the Pope is the pope and sedeplenists have not proven that their position is the correct one.

Quote from: 2Vermont

If the Pope is not the Pope then it appears that removing "the pope" from the prayers is not applicable.  So it all goes back to whether the Pope is the pope and sedeplenists have not proven that their position is the correct one.

Again, no priest or bishop, SV or not, has the authority to omit anything from the Canon of the Mass.

Sedevacantism is only an opinion. No matter how terribly I myself wish that weren't true, the fact is that's all it is. We are all allowed our own opinions, but the Mass is not ours and no body has a right to omit anything from it - regardless of how strongly they hold to their own opinion.

Ex Quo reinforces this fact - you should read it.

You know what, I'll give it to you.  Let's go with nothing should be removed/changed from the Mass.  The fact that SV's (and I'm not even sure whether this is true of all SV's) remove the name from the prayer doesn't in and of itself confirm the SV position incorrect (which in its simplest form is: the current papal claimant is not a valid pope).  They may be wrong to remove the name, but that doesn't mean the SV;s are wrong in general.