Author Topic: What about Sedeprivationism? (Read 6271 times)

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #45 on:** April 26, 2014, 08:32:46 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: SeanJohnson
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Mithrandylan
Sean,

To hold an office IS necessarily to hold jurisdiction. That's where the jurisdiction comes from, it's attached to the office.

Those who do not possess an office do not have jurisdiction. That does not mean it cannot be delegated to them or supplied to them, but for lack of delegation they do not have it, and the supplication of it only extends to certain acts, and only for the duration of those acts in order to ensure validity.

But sedeprivationism is not concerned with priests, rather bishops. Introducing priests into the mix unnecessarily confuses the issue. The entire point of sedeprivationism is to combat the difficulties presented by the crisis viz. authority (or lack thereof) and succession. It is concerned with assigning some theoretically authoritative character to the bishops and popes of the Novus Ordo Church.

You have to explain it to him because he is in over his head and does not have the humility to admit it.

Sedeprivationism is a novelty and is certainly a doctrinal error at a minimum.

Yes, please explain to me how a parish priest could be constrained from hearing confessions 8 there 8 no distinction between the power of order and the exercise is of jurisdiction.

I'm not sure what the 8's (maybe they're supposed to be asterisks around "there"?) in your post mean, but your question is tangential and distracting. You claimed agreement with the sedeprivationist theory that an office can be held without possessing the jurisdiction attached to it. To prove this, you seem to be relying on instances where jurisdictional acts are performed validly by someone who does not have an office. It is granted that one who does not have an office may have jurisdiction delegated to him for a period (by the law or a superior) or have jurisdiction supplied to him to ensure the validity of a given act.

However, it is a non-sequitur to then conclude that one who possesses an office may somehow not posses the jurisdiction attached to it. Think about it. It's precisely because someone doesn't have an office that they must have jurisdiction delegated or supplied to them for the validity of jurisdictional acts.

You have it backwards:

I am relying on examples where a person holds an office, but does not have jurisdiction.

You may think you are, but I assure you that you are not! Who did you have in mind, specifically, who holds an office and does not have jurisdiction? I'm looking for a name and the office which this person holds.

PG · « **Reply #46 on:** April 26, 2014, 08:58:00 PM »

I meant to say seanjohnson in my last post(not johnlane). Sorry.

Seanjohnson - I am grateful to +Lefebvre, and I invoke him. But, I am not pleased with the state of the sspx, and the resistance is :kick-can: (point the finger at R&R).

I also doubt the validity of the new ordinations and consecrations(therefore I do not accept them). I used that example to provide a parallel where vacantists looked into the past to either accept or reject the new rite. They rejected it due to no evidence in tradition, but there is tradition of the people of rome electing popes(a vacantist double standard).

One does not have to look very far to see the bind that we are in following papal one liners. Realizing this, I will follow the one liner of Quo Primum. The celebration/reception of Christ in the "most" holy sacrament is what will give us what we need to sort our way out of this mess(the breviary can change). And, 1962(like the new right of exorcism) just doesn't work.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #47 on:** April 26, 2014, 08:59:18 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: SeanJohnson
Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: SeanJohnson
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Mithrandylan
Sean,

To hold an office IS necessarily to hold jurisdiction. That's where the jurisdiction comes from, it's attached to the office.

Those who do not possess an office do not have jurisdiction. That does not mean it cannot be delegated to them or supplied to them, but for lack of delegation they do not have it, and the supplication of it only extends to certain acts, and only for the duration of those acts in order to ensure validity.

But sedeprivationism is not concerned with priests, rather bishops. Introducing priests into the mix unnecessarily confuses the issue. The entire point of sedeprivationism is to combat the difficulties presented by the crisis viz. authority (or lack thereof) and succession. It is concerned with assigning some theoretically authoritative character to the bishops and popes of the Novus Ordo Church.

You have to explain it to him because he is in over his head and does not have the humility to admit it.

Sedeprivationism is a novelty and is certainly a doctrinal error at a minimum.

Yes, please explain to me how a parish priest could be constrained from hearing confessions 8 there 8 no distinction between the power of order and the exercise is of jurisdiction.

I'm not sure what the 8's (maybe they're supposed to be asterisks around "there"?) in your post mean, but your question is tangential and distracting. You claimed agreement with the sedeprivationist theory that an office can be held without possessing the jurisdiction attached to it. To prove this, you seem to be relying on instances where jurisdictional acts are performed validly by someone who does not have an office. It is granted that one who does not have an office may have jurisdiction delegated to him for a period (by the law or a superior) or have jurisdiction supplied to him to ensure the validity of a given act.

However, it is a non-sequitur to then conclude that one who possesses an office may somehow not posses the jurisdiction attached to it. Think about it. It's precisely because someone doesn't have an office that they must have jurisdiction delegated or supplied to them for the validity of jurisdictional acts.

You have it backwards:

I am relying on examples where a person holds an office, but does not have jurisdiction.

You may think you are, but I assure you that you are not! Who did you have in mind, specifically, who holds an office and does not have jurisdiction? I'm looking for a name and the office which this person holds.

Before Vatican II, parish priests possessed territorial jurisdiction.

But not all parish priests were authorized to hear confession.

Therefore, you have an example of one who possesses the office, but not the jurisdiction.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #48 on:** April 26, 2014, 09:21:02 PM »

I'm not sure where you got that idea. Pastors possess an office, and thereby jurisdiction over their flock (Canon 873). A pastor could be removed from his office, and thereby be unable to exercise jurisdiction, but that would be because he lost it when he lost his office.

What is/are the source/s for your contention?

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #49 on:** April 26, 2014, 09:26:34 PM »

Quote from: + PG +

I meant to say seanjohnson in my last post(not johnlane). Sorry.

Seanjohnson - I am grateful to +Lefebvre, and I invoke him. But, I am not pleased with the state of the sspx, and the resistance is :kick-can: (point the finger at R&R).

I also doubt the validity of the new ordinations and consecrations(therefore I do not accept them). I used that example to provide a parallel where vacantists looked into the past to either accept or reject the new rite. They rejected it due to no evidence in tradition, but there is tradition of the people of rome electing popes(a vacantist double standard).

One does not have to look very far to see the bind that we are in following papal one liners. Realizing this, I will follow the one liner of Quo Primum. The celebration/reception of Christ in the "most" holy sacrament is what will give us what we need to sort our way out of this mess(the breviary can change). And, 1962(like the new right of exorcism) just doesn't work.

PG,

I'm not sure why you are putting such a focus on an election. It is admitted by nearly all sedevacantists that an election could be facilitated by a general council in the wake of an extinct cardinalate. The Church, as a perfect society, possesses all which she needs to govern. This is the teaching of Bellarmine and nearly every theologian who has treated extraordinary elections.

Moreover, the doubt toward the NREC and NRPO is not, as you put it, "due to no evidence in tradition" (although that is true) but due to a substantial defect in form at least in the case of the NREC, which has an equivocal essential form.

I'm still waiting for those sources you said you had. So far it's just strawman pandering against the sedevacantists, as if your position cannot exist without them.

That you would prefer to use an older missal when there are newer editions which are approved for use by the Church and contain no error whatsoever is hardly an argument, and I'm not sure why you brought it up in the first place because if anything it discredits you as choosing sedeprivationism because you believe it caters to a particular preference of yours.

Ambrose · « **Reply #50 on:** April 26, 2014, 10:33:28 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Alcuin
Quote from: Ambrose
Regarding John XXIII, most Sedevacatists are not quick to conclude that he was not a Pope. For myself, I believe John XXIII was a true Pope, but was misled. I base this on the evidence that is publicly available.

What about Paul VI?

Paul VI was a public heretic who did things that a Pope could not do, so there is a world of difference between him and John XXIII.

....which goes right back to the unanswerable Vennari challenge:

Sedes believe that if a pope does something evil, it is proof he is not pope.

Sean,

In order to take these matters seriously, all terms must be defined clearly.

1. Can a Pope be personally immoral? Yes

2. Can a Pope give an evil command as Pope? Yes

3. Can a Pope do something gravely evil, even publicly? Yes

4. Can a Pope be a public heretic? No

5. Can a Pope authoritatively teach heresy and grave errors against the Faithful morals? No

6. Can a Pope promulgate evil or impious universal disciplinary laws? No

7. In relation to #6, can a Pope promulgate a sacramental rite that is evil or leads to impiety? No

8. Can a Pope canonize a man who is not a Saint? No.

Does that bring more clarity for you?

PG · « **Reply #51 on:** April 27, 2014, 12:36:13 AM »

Ambrose - Concerning number 4, the heresy of the v2 popes has materialized(it is publicly known), but would you say that is it formal? If you consider it to be formal, can you replace the word "public" with "formal" on this forum from now on(because formal heretics are also publicly known)? And, if you can, why don't you?

Ambrose · « **Reply #52 on:** April 27, 2014, 12:48:46 AM »

Quote from: + PG +

Ambrose - Concerning number 4, the heresy of the v2 popes has materialized(it is publicly known), but would you say that is it formal? If you consider it to be formal, can you replace the word "public" with "formal" on this forum from now on(because formal heretics are also publicly known)? And, if you can, why don't you?

Have you read this? http://www.sedevacantist.com/pertinacity.html

It may assist in understanding why I have deliberately not used the term "formal" in this context.

Pete Vere · « **Reply #53 on:** April 27, 2014, 01:24:07 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: SeanJohnson
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Jehanne
Does it answer the objections made against sedevacantism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedeprivationism

This theory is novel and is break from the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine and other authorities. Stay away!

Sedevacantism itself is a break from the teachings of St. Robert Bellarmine, as easily demonstrated in the CFN article.

The CFN article is junk theology. I am ashamed for John Vennari for having bought into this shoddy work and allowing Catholic Family News to publish it.

Read the latest heated discussion on the Bellarmine Forums on Mr. Siscoe's article:

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1606

Oh?

Did John finally come up with an argument?

The same one predicted by Vennari, I assume?

Possibly. Maybe I missed something in the CFN article, but I did not really see any argument presented by Siscoe that John Lane or some other intelligent sede has NOT refuted in the past. Therefore, since no new argument appears to have been presented against sede'ism, one cannot blame sede apologists for simply regurgitating prior rebuttals.

On another note, I was surprised to see R&R's are still regurgitating my argument from Vatican I on St Peter's perpetual successors, which I came up with over 20 years ago while debating John Lane online.

Alcuin · « **Reply #54 on:** April 27, 2014, 01:42:43 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Alcuin
Quote from: Ambrose
Regarding John XXIII, most Sedevacatists are not quick to conclude that he was not a Pope. For myself, I believe John XXIII was a true Pope, but was misled. I base this on the evidence that is publicly available.

What about Paul VI?

Paul VI was a public heretic who did things that a Pope could not do, so there is a world of difference between him and John XXIII.

That's pope-sifting. John XXIII is in but Paul VI is out.

PG · « **Reply #55 on:** April 27, 2014, 02:08:48 AM »

Ambrose - Thanks for the link. But, I already see a problem: "blamelessly mistaken/not disorderly/not guilty of a sin at all".

"Thus a man who shoots his neighbour has performed the physical act proper to the sin of murder. But if he had blamelessly mistaken his neighbour for a wild animal, his intention was not disorderly. The matter of the sin was present, but not its form. We have come to say that such a man has sinned materially, but not formally. But what that really means is that he is not guilty of sin at all, for in the absence of the formal element, no entity can exist."

The church is a perfect society(it is she who formalizes). God's judgments are just. And, I don't think it would be difficult to find a fault in the murder of a man mistaken for a wild animal(compared to"no sin at all").

Alcuin · « **Reply #56 on:** April 27, 2014, 04:29:36 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Alcuin
Quote from: Ambrose
Regarding John XXIII, most Sedevacatists are not quick to conclude that he was not a Pope. For myself, I believe John XXIII was a true Pope, but was misled. I base this on the evidence that is publicly available.

What about Paul VI?

Paul VI was a public heretic who did things that a Pope could not do, so there is a world of difference between him and John XXIII.

Do you believe Paul VI was validly elected?

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #57 on:** April 27, 2014, 06:46:28 AM »

Quote from: Alcuin

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Alcuin
Quote from: Ambrose
Regarding John XXIII, most Sedevacatists are not quick to conclude that he was not a Pope. For myself, I believe John XXIII was a true Pope, but was misled. I base this on the evidence that is publicly available.

What about Paul VI?

Paul VI was a public heretic who did things that a Pope could not do, so there is a world of difference between him and John XXIII.

That's pope-sifting. John XXIII is in but Paul VI is out.

It's a meaningless assertion which, as most arguments contra-sedevacantism, rely on a faulty premise which misconstrues the evidence used to arrive at this conclusion.

In any event, it's better than saint-sifting, wouldn't you say? The sedeplenist position, especially now after JPII and JXXIII have been, after "after lengthy reflection" and "having assiduously invoked God's assistance" been "declared and defined saints" with their veneration "established for the whole Church" in honor of "The Holy Trinity" and with the "authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul" doesn't really have a leg to stand on.

Ambrose · « **Reply #58 on:** April 27, 2014, 07:14:22 AM »

Quote from: Alcuin

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Alcuin
Quote from: Ambrose
Regarding John XXIII, most Sedevacatists are not quick to conclude that he was not a Pope. For myself, I believe John XXIII was a true Pope, but was misled. I base this on the evidence that is publicly available.

What about Paul VI?

Paul VI was a public heretic who did things that a Pope could not do, so there is a world of difference between him and John XXIII.

Do you believe Paul VI was validly elected?

I have very strong doubts that he was validly elected. I am not convinced that this man possessed the Catholic Faith, which is crucial for an election to be valid.

There are two possibilities with Paul VI, he was validly elected on June 21, 1963, and fell from his office on December 7, 1965 or that he was never Pope to begin with. For myself, I lean to the latter.

Sedevacantists are not settled on this point either. Bp. Guerard des Lauriers set the date of Paul VI's fall on December 7, 1965, the date that he approved the Vatican II docuмents. I am not sure if those who follow his thinking say the same, such as Bps. McKenna or Sanborn.

From the very beginning of his (Paul VI) "pontificate," there was turmoil in the Church on doctrinal matters. His inaction, and tacit approval of the heretics at Vatican II were a demonstration of his lack of Faith. His actions and inaction in defense of the Faith, which was under grave attack, are proofs that the man was not guarding the Sacred Deposit, rather he was allowing it to be perverted.

This demonstration of a lack of Faith, coupled with turmoil among the hierarchy on doctrinal matters, demonstrates a lack of peaceful acceptance to Paul VI. The hierarchy that was remaining faithful, clearly was not trusting Paul VI as Pope during the Council, and this was only further demonstrated by the resistance to the Novus Ordo Missae, due to doctrinal problems in the rite. Such acts are unheard by Catholics towards a true Pope.

The fact that members of the hierarchy were resisting Paul VI on matters of doctrine in the 1960's is a demonstration of a lack of peaceful acceptance. We are not talking about disagreements on prudential matters with the Pope, but on doctrinal matters. Catholics do not have such disagreements with the Pope, either directly or indirectly, they trust the Pope and his office which protects him.

Ambrose · « **Reply #59 on:** April 27, 2014, 07:17:24 AM »

Quote from: Alcuin

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Alcuin
Quote from: Ambrose
Regarding John XXIII, most Sedevacatists are not quick to conclude that he was not a Pope. For myself, I believe John XXIII was a true Pope, but was misled. I base this on the evidence that is publicly available.

What about Paul VI?

Paul VI was a public heretic who did things that a Pope could not do, so there is a world of difference between him and John XXIII.

That's pope-sifting. John XXIII is in but Paul VI is out.

No, it's a careful application of Catholic principles. The problems (doctrinal, liturgical) that existed with Paul VI simply did not exist with John XXIII.