Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Quo vadis Domine on November 11, 2023, 06:09:30 AM
-
As opposed to straight sedevacantism, what problem(s) does sedeprivationism actually solve or help explain? Serious question.
-
I've addressed this many times.
It solves the problem of Father Cekada's "Aunt Helen" being able to wake up one morning and simply decide that a Pope is illegitimate and not the pope.
In straight SVism there's no room whatsoever for the authority of the Church, which absolutely must play some kind of a role in determining whether a Pope is truly a non-pope.
It addresses the same problem that John of St. Thomas articulates with regard to straight SVism, where the Church would be in chaos if any private individual could simply determine that a Pope is illegitimate at any given time.
This also undermines the authority of all dogma, since if a Pope were to define a dogma you don't like, you simply have to declare the See vacant to reject said dogma, and as a result there's no a priori guarantee of infallibility.
These are very serious problems with straight SVism. At the same time, there are serious problems with John of St. Thomas and Cajetan's solution. Sedeprivationism finds the right balance between heresy deposing ipso facto and the requirement for the Church's authority to have some role in the matter.
-
In about 1990 or so, I left SSPX seminary due to my convictions regarding SVism. I had come to the conclusion that R&R was irreconcilable with Catholic doctrine regarding the indefectibility of the Church. That's a typical progression. I became a Traditional Catholic simply due to my general sensus Catholicus that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church. When I was in college, I read a book written by St. Alphonsus and it became evident to me that the faith expressed in his book was not the same as that held by the Conciliar Church.
But once I got to seminary and began my study of Catholic doctrine, the Catholic ecclesiology to which I became exposed revealed to me the incompatibility between R&R and Traditional theology. So I moved toward SVism and went to then-Father Sanborn's seminary (well, he started a seminary for me and one other guy).
At one point, however, I ran into an SV chap who told me that he had decided that Pius IX had been a non-pope due to some "heresy" he had discovered in his teaching. So this led to a bit of intellectual soul-searching. I knew this was untenable but couldn't articulate why, based on the principles of straight SVism.
I ended up leaving Father Sanborn, but then vacillated between SSPX and SVism for a number of years ... as neither approach seemed to be satisfactory. After I had left SVism and moved back toward the SSPX, I ended up at The Catholic University of America and stayed for a couple years with Father Ringrose. While I was there, someone at his chapel came up to me and mentioned how he had read a pamphlet by Father Cekada that he found persuasive, and was asking me to explain why I had backed away from SVism. I told him that I'd write something up for him to explain my thoughts.
So I wrote up this explanation and sent it to him. This "docuмent" was eventually published by The Angelus in 1995. I had never intended it for publication. It was just a rough draft, something I cranked out in part of an afternoon. Not only did The Angelus not bother to even ask me for my permission to publish it, but they engaged in some editing of the docuмent (without my approval) ... and even spelled my name wrong on the "article" ... as I didn't even put my name on it, since I just sent it to the man who had asked me for my thoughts and didn't feel that I had to put my name on it. At one point, another young man at the chapel came up to me and said, "Congratulations." I was confused and asked, "For what?" "For your article in The Angelus." I said, "What?" I wasn't very happy with them. SSPX knew I was staying with Father Ringrose and could have simply reached out to me about it.
As a result, unfortunately, what was published was by no means a finished product. Father Cekada issued a public refutation of the paper / letter, since I had mentioned in it that I was responding to his pamphlet. In point of fact, I was only responding indirectly to the pamphlet, because the man who initially asked me simply mentioned that he had read it. I myself had not even read the pamphlet and was not addressing anything concretely within it. Father lambasted me for being pretentious for using lots of untranslated Latin, for showing off ... except, again, there was no such intention. I just whipped this thing out in an afternoon and hadn't taken the time to translate the Latin. There were a few times that The Angelus translated some Latin, and in a couple places the translation was not correct, and Father Cekada attacked me for that, even though I had not been the translator.
In any case, I read his refutation and it was extremely weak and unconvincing, his major point being a serious blunder, where he confused the notion of dogmatic facts being "historical" to come to the conclusion that we cannot question the legitimacy of PAST popes unless there was someone who had been alive at the time who questioned them. No, the term historical means simply that it's a point of history, an event, rather than a doctrinal proposition.
I never really bothered to issue my own rebuttal to his refutation, since I had never intended to enter the public arena in the first place.
I had as the subject, "Pope-Sifting: Difficulties with Sedevacantism". Father Sanborn had popularized the term "sifting the Magisterium" to describe the R&R notion that individuals could filter and sift the Magisterium based on their own judgment. So, my issue stemmed from the problem with SVism where Catholics could, based on their own judgment, sift popes ... just as the one man sifted out Pius IX. I had known of others who decided that St. Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII were also non-popes.
Now, this paper was NOT intended as an endorsement of R&R, with which I still had serious issues, probably more issues than I had with straight SVism ... but of course The Angelus used it that way.
After vacillating for many years due to the issues both with R&R and with SVism, I became acquainted with Sedeprivationism, and it was only there that I found the perfect balance between the problems with R&R and with straight SVism.
Ironically, Father (and later Bishop) Sanborn himself ultimately also ended up (on a different path) at Sedeprivationism, and Father Ringrose has recently become a Sedevacantist (or some kind).
-
In about 1990 or so, I left SSPX seminary due to my convictions regarding SVism. I had come to the conclusion that R&R was irreconcilable with Catholic doctrine regarding the indefectibility of the Church. That's a typical progression. I became a Traditional Catholic simply due to my general sensus Catholicus that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church. When I was in college, I read a book written by St. Alphonsus and it became evident to me that the faith expressed in his book was not the same as that held by the Conciliar Church.
But once I got to seminary and began my study of Catholic doctrine, the Catholic ecclesiology to which I became exposed revealed to me the incompatibility between R&R and Traditional theology. So I moved toward SVism and went to then-Father Sanborn's seminary (well, he started a seminary for me and one other guy).
At one point, however, I ran into an SV chap who told me that he had decided that Pius IX had been a non-pope due to some "heresy" he had discovered in his teaching. So this led to a bit of intellectual soul-searching. I knew this was untenable but couldn't articulate why, based on the principles of straight SVism.
I ended up leaving Father Sanborn, but then vacillated between SSPX and SVism for a number of years ... as neither approach seemed to be satisfactory. After I had left SVism and moved back toward the SSPX, I ended up at The Catholic University of America and stayed for a couple years with Father Ringrose. While I was there, someone at his chapel came up to me and mentioned how he had read a pamphlet by Father Cekada that he found persuasive, and was asking me to explain why I had backed away from SVism. I told him that I'd write something up for him to explain my thoughts.
So I wrote up this explanation and sent it to him. This "docuмent" was eventually published by The Angelus in 1995. I had never intended it for publication. It was just a rough draft, something I cranked out in part of an afternoon. Not only did The Angelus not bother to even ask me for my permission to publish it, but they engaged in some editing of the docuмent (without my approval) ... and even spelled my name wrong on the "article" ... as I didn't even put my name on it, since I just sent it to the man who had asked me for my thoughts and didn't feel that I had to put my name on it. At one point, another young man at the chapel came up to me and said, "Congratulations." I was confused and asked, "For what?" "For your article in The Angelus." I said, "What?" I wasn't very happy with them. SSPX knew I was staying with Father Ringrose and could have simply reached out to me about it.
As a result, unfortunately, what was published was by no means a finished product. Father Cekada issued a public refutation of the paper / letter, since I had mentioned in it that I was responding to his pamphlet. In point of fact, I was only responding indirectly to the pamphlet, because the man who initially asked me simply mentioned that he had read it. I myself had not even read the pamphlet and was not addressing anything concretely within it. Father lambasted me for being pretentious for using lots of untranslated Latin, for showing off ... except, again, there was no such intention. I just whipped this thing out in an afternoon and hadn't taken the time to translate the Latin. There were a few times that The Angelus translated some Latin, and in a couple places the translation was not correct, and Father Cekada attacked me for that, even though I had not been the translator.
In any case, I read his refutation and it was extremely weak and unconvincing, his major point being a serious blunder, where he confused the notion of dogmatic facts being "historical" to come to the conclusion that we cannot question the legitimacy of PAST popes unless there was someone who had been alive at the time who questioned them. No, the term historical means simply that it's a point of history, an event, rather than a doctrinal proposition.
I never really bothered to issue my own rebuttal to his refutation, since I had never intended to enter the public arena in the first place.
I had as the subject, "Pope-Sifting: Difficulties with Sedevacantism". Father Sanborn had popularized the term "sifting the Magisterium" to describe the R&R notion that individuals could filter and sift the Magisterium based on their own judgment. So, my issue stemmed from the problem with SVism where Catholics could, based on their own judgment, sift popes ... just as the one man sifted out Pius IX. I had known of others who decided that St. Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII were also non-popes.
Now, this paper was NOT intended as an endorsement of R&R, with which I still had serious issues, probably more issues than I had with straight SVism ... but of course The Angelus used it that way.
After vacillating for many years due to the issues both with R&R and with SVism, I became acquainted with Sedeprivationism, and it was only there that I found the perfect balance between the problems with R&R and with straight SVism.
Ironically, Father (and later Bishop) Sanborn himself ultimately also ended up (on a different path) at Sedeprivationism, and Father Ringrose has recently become a Sedevacantist (or some kind).
So you wrote an article that Fr Cekada felt the need to refute? I'm a little skeptical, you got any proof for any of this?
-
As opposed to straight sedevacantism, what problem(s) does sedeprivationism actually solve or help explain? Serious question.
I think it's much more reasonable. I know Sean Johnson steps outside his usual rational self when it comes to sede-impoundism, sede-privationism, etc. He almost becomes a different (irrational) person: he gets all angry and smears all the totally different positions together, calling them all "sedevacantist" or "sede-whatever".
Again, I don't enjoy attacking Sean here, but I must state the truth: I knew Sean for 1.5 years IRL at the seminary, I've seen his writings for YEARS since then, and I would almost consider him an intellectual. Most of his writings are VERY logical and rational. He does his research. He's a good, clear writer. He is fervent for the Faith, and against error. So don't get the wrong idea.
But in the past, Sean has switched almost to a different personality when discussing sedevacantism or any of the other "lite" versions of it. I don't think that's rational. He would need to demonstrate how they are different names for the same thing. Because obviously they're not. They're completely different positions.
As to your question, I think you miss the point: neither R&R, Sedevacantism OR Sedeprivationism has "solved the Crisis" so they're quite equal in that regard...
In my own fallible, personal opinion the Crisis in the Church (what happened to the Pope 50 years ago, Vatican II, the birth of the Conciliar Church, etc.) is LITERALLY a supernatural mystery, as in: the powers of man are insufficient to explain, much less fix it. Just like Man could have never figured out the Trinity without a revelation from God, not in a million years, so also Man will never figure out or solve this Crisis without a DIRECT intervention/revelation from God. And by direct I mean miraculous: If Our Lady, St. Michael, St. Peter, or an angel intervened on God's orders, that would count.
And I've given reasons for my personal opinion: the Crisis hasn't been solved YET. And we're not just a couple decades into this Crisis, but more than FIVE decades. And frankly, given the devolution of mens' minds, education, etc. if the men living 1970-2020 weren't able to solve it, then the men from 2020 - 2070 have NO HOPE of solving it. No offense, but growing up in front of screens and with ever-poorer education does not make you any smarter.
Look at where Bp. Williamson's education was at age 35. Or many others from his generation. Unfortunately they're not making any more of those.
-
So you wrote an article that Fr Cekada felt the need to refute? I'm a little skeptical, you got any proof for any of this?
So you're saying I'm lying? Google is your friend. I gave the name of the "article" and Father Cekada's article comes up as the top result if you type it in there. Also, to repeat, I did not write any article. I wrote a paper or letter to a friend that The Angelus turned into an article without my consent, not a finished product by any means, but was just written as I would have jotted out a post on CI.
EDIT: to save you the trouble -- https://traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=42 (https://traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=42)
-
Durango77, you obviously have a lot to learn. I do hope you're prepared to change your mind about many other things, because you were clearly DEAD WRONG here, bro.
I hope you have the humility to admit that you don't know everything, and to change your mind and your "positions" as you learn new information.
When you stop learning, you become an ignoramus and are almost certainly going to end up dead-wrong about multiple topics. No human knows everything out of the gate.
You know, there was a "meme" decades ago before memes were a thing: the old meme that teenagers and young adults "know everything" and then later find out they don't.
Well, there's no reason why someone in their 30's or 40's couldn't be wrong or uninformed about a few things too. There are just too many fields of expertise, and the Media is too full of lies, for everyone to full end up with a 100% collection of Truth early in life. Unfortunately it takes more work than that. You can't just go to public school and watch the Media and soak up the sweet, sweet truth.
Just a few thoughts for this fine Saturday morning.
-
So you wrote an article that Fr Cekada felt the need to refute? I'm a little skeptical, you got any proof for any of this?
It is true. I witnessed the whole thing whilst standing afar.
A gentleman or a lady does not question the veracity of another's statements without concrete knowledge to the contrary.
BTW, Lad, what was the title of that journal published by then-Fr. Sanborn in the 1990s? My memory has clouded after 30 years.
-
So you're saying I'm lying? Google is your friend. I gave the name of the "article" and Father Cekada's article comes up as the top result if you type it in there. Also, to repeat, I did not write any article. I wrote a paper or letter to a friend that The Angelus turned into an article without my consent, not a finished product by any means, but was just written as I would have jotted out a post on CI.
EDIT: to save you the trouble -- https://traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=42 (https://traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=42)
No, definitely not calling you a liar, I'm just from the show me state. Thanks for linking the article.
-
It is true. I witnessed the whole thing whilst standing afar.
A gentleman or a lady does not question the veracity of another's statements without concrete knowledge to the contrary.
BTW, Lad, what was the title of that journal published by then-Fr. Sanborn in the 1990s? My memory has clouded after 30 years.
Ah, my memory is a bit cloudy also, but was it Sodalitium? I helped put together and edit the few couple issues. I wrote a couple articles for that in Latin (under a pen name that I can't recall either). Yes, that was a long time ago.
EDIT: I had to Google search, and it was actually called Sacerdotium. If I recall, Father Sanborn and I each wrote about half of the first issue in the Fall of 1990.
-
No, definitely not calling you a liar, I'm just from the show me state. Thanks for linking the article.
Well, it was just your tone. You could have just asked me for a link. Basically, though, while I've revealed my true identity here before, I prefer not to do it too often ... since I have little doubt that there will come a day when some of us will be rounded up for some of the content we've posted here. Oh, well, it's in God's Hands.
I'm not particularly proud of that 1995 Angelus "article". It was not especially well written. Imagine writing out something very quickly ... a first rough draft (which is what it was), though I didn't have any intention of cleaning it up and improving it ... and having that published with your name on it. Some of the criticisms from Father Cekada were that I was being pretentious by peppering the thing with Latin quotes, having footnotes with Latin in them, etc. ... which I only did because I didn't want to take the time to translate them, and then for a bad translation ... except that it wasn't my translation. As I mentioned, they even spelled my name wrong, because I never put my name on this thing ... just printed it out (this was before e-mail was widespread) and handed it to the man who had asked me for my thoughts about SVism. If I recall, I whipped the thing out in about 2 hours one Sunday afternoon, the bulk of which time was spent finding and reproducing some of the citations from the various theologians. I still recall the last name of the gentleman who asked me for it, though I won't write it here. While I was at St. Athanasius with Fr. Ringrose, I started and led a Gregorian schola, which was all men a capella, and we actually sounded pretty good, despite the fact that I had to teach a couple of these men how to read chant. This gentleman was one of the schola members, and it was after a practice we had that he approached me and asked me for my thoughts.
-
Durango77, you obviously have a lot to learn. I do hope you're prepared to change your mind about many other things, because you were clearly DEAD WRONG here, bro.
I hope you have the humility to admit that you don't know everything, and to change your mind and your "positions" as you learn new information.
When you stop learning, you become an ignoramus and are almost certainly going to end up dead-wrong about multiple topics. No human knows everything out of the gate.
You know, there was a "meme" decades ago before memes were a thing: the old meme that teenagers and young adults "know everything" and then later find out they don't.
Well, there's no reason why someone in their 30's or 40's couldn't be wrong or uninformed about a few things too. There are just too many fields of expertise, and the Media is too full of lies, for everyone to full end up with a 100% collection of Truth early in life. Unfortunately it takes more work than that. You can't just go to public school and watch the Media and soak up the sweet, sweet truth.
Just a few thoughts for this fine Saturday morning.
I do try to keep an open mind about this whole topic, though if you're thinking I'm going to join the R/R position, that is something that I don't think will ever happen. As we are seeing where that position leads, basically back to the traditional NO camp, and their main position at this point seems to be evolving into "well Jesus is actually the head of the Church, just ignore Francis and pray for him".
I know private interpretations and private revelation don't count for anything outside of myself, but in my journey as a Catholic, when I converted I happened to live within walking distance of an SSPX chapel, and I never knew it was there until years after I had learned about Vatican 2, R/R, heretical "popes" and the SV positions. To me that is God's providence keeping me away from the wrong path.
-
I know private interpretations and private revelation don't count for anything outside of myself, but in my journey as a Catholic, when I converted I happened to live within walking distance of an SSPX chapel, and I never knew it was there until years after I had learned about Vatican 2, R/R, heretical "popes" and the SV positions. To me that is God's providence keeping me away from the wrong path.
The SSPX does not claim jurisdiction. They expressly deny it. You can go to their masses and disagree with them on their conclusions about the crisis and they do not say they have any authority to bind you.
-
though if you're thinking I'm going to join the R/R position, that is something that I don't think will ever happen.
Sedeprivationism isn’t R&R.
-
As opposed to straight sedevacantism, what problem(s) does sedeprivationism actually solve or help explain? Serious question.
It doesn't. It attempts to solve the Crisis problem, but as with most man-made solutions regrading problems in the Church (e.g., Protestantism, and the long lines of heretics and heresies) which are not from God, it fails.
Colossians 2:8
"Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ
It posits genuine hierarchs who it then divests of the power of true hierarchs. So it provides a variation of the R & R "cardboard" pope (thank you, Father Cekada). Its distinction from R & R is that it provides a "cardboard" pope with no authority whatsoever - except keeping the seat warm. So they can't be accused of their dreaded "sifting," which they accuse the R & R of doing: they reject everything the cardboard pope says and does, except his making of other "cardboards," e.g. bishops.
-
It solves the problem of Father Cekada's "Aunt Helen" being able to wake up one morning and simply decide that a Pope is illegitimate and not the pope.
In straight SVism there's no room whatsoever for the authority of the Church, which absolutely must play some kind of a role in determining whether a Pope is truly a non-pope.
It addresses the same problem that John of St. Thomas articulates with regard to straight SVism, where the Church would be in chaos if any private individual could simply determine that a Pope is illegitimate at any given time.
Thank you for this explanation. Will you please expand on what you mean by room for the Church's authority? Specifically, are you saying that there is an instance in which a sedevacantist would disregard the Church's authority (and the sedeprivationist would not)?
-
Sedeprivationism isn’t R&R.
I think Matthew is R/R and not a sedeprivationist, is why I said that. Regarding sedeprivationism, I'm more and more intrigued by it as Bishop Sanborn and his priests have been really out there pushing it and doing more videos about it. Though it doesn't really seem to get us anywhere, as Francis would somehow have to convert right, throw V2 out the window? Francis doesn't seem like the type who would convert and seems to be setting up the next "papal conclave" to elect his hand picked successor, who likely will not be doing anything except continuing to push the V2 envelope.
-
It attempts to solve the Crisis problem
No, it attempts to EXPLAIN the problem in theological/doctrinal terms.
-
After reading Fr Cekada's great response to the R/R position of the mid 90s, he brought up Paul IV. How does sedeprivationism get around this from Cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio?
"6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power."
-
And I might be missing something here, but I thought all Papal writings are contained on the Vatican Website? For some reason my searches for this docuмent on the Vatican website are coming up with nil.
-
And I might be missing something here, but I thought all Papal writings are contained on the Vatican Website? For some reason my searches for this docuмent on the Vatican website are coming up with nil.
Vatican website papal docuмents (https://www.vatican.va/content/vatican/en/holy-father.index.html#holy-father) don't go back to 1559. Try the PDF at this link: https://www.todayscatholicworld.com/cuм-ex-apostolatus-officio.pdf (https://www.todayscatholicworld.com/cuм-ex-apostolatus-officio.pdf)
and in Latin at: https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/cuм_ex_apostolatus_officio (https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/cuм_ex_apostolatus_officio)
-
No take on the Crisis solves -- or is meant to solve -- anything. Each and every one is an attempt to ascertain what happened during and after V2 and what that means with respect to the identity and whereabouts of Holy Church.
Even if God helped one to understand every single aspect of what happened from that day to this, NOTHING would actually be SOLVED.
-
After reading Fr Cekada's great response to the R/R position of the mid 90s, he brought up Paul IV. How does sedeprivationism get around this from Cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio?
This has been addressed many times. cuм ex is a legislative / disciplinary decree, and not primarily doctrinal (though there are some implied doctrinal principles), and the docuмents issued by St. Pius X and Pius XII seemed to indicate otherwise. What Paul IV was doing here was in fact by his decree pre-emptively removing them from office, thereby also removing the formal link to offices held by manifest heretics ... but it does not run counter to sede-privationism, but in fact reinforces it. Sedeprivationism is also implicit in the writings of St. Robert Bellarmine, where he distinguishes in the case of Nestorius someone who lost authority since he began to preach heresy (aka manifest his heresy pertinaciously) losing authority while being in a state of excommunicandus ... relying on the teaching of Pope St. Celestine. So Nestorius lost all authority, but was not officially removed (excommunicatus) but rather in a state of pending excommunication excommunicandus.
Straight SVism is untenable due to the argumentum ad absurdum of allowing Father Cekada's "Aunt Helen" to wake up one morning during the reign of Pope Pius XII (or a future Pope Pius XIII) and decided that the See is vacant because she had discovered heresy in his teaching.
-
Straight SVism is untenable due to the argumentum ad absurdum of allowing Father Cekada's "Aunt Helen" to wake up one morning during the reign of Pope Pius XII (or a future Pope Pius XIII) and decided that the See is vacant because she had discovered heresy in his teaching.
This is a problem that has never been adequately addressed by the straight SVs, and something that Bishop Sanborn also came to understand. There has to be some principle to prevent this type of "chaos" in the Church (as John of St. Thomas characterized it), and that principle is not clearly articulated by SVs. See, one could argue from Universal Peaceful Acceptance, but then UAP seems to fly in the fact of SVism, since Roncalli and Montini (at least in the beginning) were certainly universally accepted.
-
This is a problem that has never been adequately addressed by the straight SVs, and something that Bishop Sanborn also came to understand. There has to be some principle to prevent this type of "chaos" in the Church (as John of St. Thomas characterized it), and that principle is not clearly articulated by SVs. See, one could argue from Universal Peaceful Acceptance, but then UAP seems to fly in the fact of SVism, since Roncalli and Montini (at least in the beginning) were certainly universally accepted.
The argument to this is that Aunt Helen could just be plain wrong and context matters. If I wanted to go through let's say...Pope St. Linus's teaching and take something out of context and find "heresy" then the right way to handle that is to say they are wrong on the matter and to recant and in charity show them or tell them why they are wrong.
-
The argument to this is that Aunt Helen could just be plain wrong and context matters. If I wanted to go through let's say...Pope St. Linus's teaching and take something out of context and find "heresy" then the right way to handle that is to say they are wrong on the matter and to recant and in charity show them or tell them why they are wrong.
That's beside the point. Of course one should try to persuade Aunt Helen that she's wrong. But that would be your opinion against that of the Linus-vacantist. There has to be an objective standard to know who is a Pope and who isn't, not just your private opinion that this individual is wrong. And it isn't just about whether the individual is wrong materially in their interpretation of Linus' teaching, but that they are wrong to be holding that popes are not popes in principle.
Let's say that someone decides that Pius XII was also non-pope because, according to him, Pius XII was a heretic for condoning NFP or condoning evolution or for permitting the liturgical changes, etc. ... and there are some out there who hold this. What principle is there to prevent the individual from coming to this conclusion. At this point, then, for this individual, the dogma of the Assumption is no longer a defined dogma. Similar with Pius IX, and the chap I knew who decided that he was a non-pope. At that point, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is no longer a dogma, nor is the dogma of papal infallibility. If Aunt Helen can start removing popes, then Aunt Helen can also start removing dogmas.
Now, some hold that Universal Peaceful Acceptance provides the necessary a priori certainty regarding the legitimacy of a pope, and that the pope's legitimacy is known with dogmatic certainty. Some theologians, however, only hold that the pope's legitimacy can be known with moral certainty, and they make a lot of good points. Then you have to determine what constitutes Universal Peaceful Acceptance. This is a complex issue. But Universal Peaceful Acceptance poses a problem for Sedevacantism, since by the most accepted definition of the term, Roncalli and Montini (at least initially) had such Universal Peaceful Acceptance.
-
but that they are wrong to be holding that popes are not popes in principle.
Right, Aunt Helen should know that she shouldn't even entertain the idea that it's possible, FOR HER, to reach this conclusion. It's only possible for the Church to judge, and then TELL HER what to do.
-
Related question, if we know, how do we know which popes were the true popes during the Great Western Schism?
Also, if Urban VI was the true pope, peacefully accepted, but subsequently rejected by 15 cardinals, what does that make those cardinals if the person of the pope is a dogmatic fact?
Certainly they can't be called neither schismatics nor heretics for doubting the validity of the election.
-
By the way, as usual, I missed the part where it's explained how exactly sedeprivationism solves the epistemological problem.
-
In practical terms, does being a sedeprivationist vs. a totalist/sedevacantist differ in terms of actions taken? Or would it only, theoretically, be in future actions, e.g. accepting a Novus Ordo pope who converted?
-
Why is it that those clergy that subscribe to the thesis hold that sspx mass attendance is objective mortality sinful? What is the difference between una cuм mortal sin and sspv positive doubt regarding certain consecrations?
Both parties are essentially pope and become the final judgment regarding access to the sacraments.
These clerics pose no threat to actual heretics but rule with an iron fist with the most affable faithful.
-
Why is it that those clergy that subscribe to the thesis hold that sspx mass attendance is objective mortality sinful? What is the difference between una cuм mortal sin and sspv positive doubt regarding certain consecrations?
Both parties are essentially pope and become the final judgment regarding access to the sacraments.
These clerics pose no threat to actual heretics but rule with an iron fist with the most affable faithful.
That's simply because the most prominent sedeprivationists today had long been dogmatic sedevacantists. One could make a case that the formality of inserting a material Pope's name in the canon is consistent with their material posesson of office. Father Chazal holds a position that's nearly identical to sedeprivationism, but he is una cuм. I believe that sedeprivationism inherently makes the una cuм less of a problem ... but, as I said, the baggage from decades of sedevacantism by these same priests is difficult to shake.
-
By the way, as usual, I missed the part where it's explained how exactly sedeprivationism solves the epistemological problem.
It doesn't. That's why I have a different position in terms of the role of individual judgment that is not primarily focused on the legitimacy of a given pope, but, rather, on identifying the True Church of Christ.
John of St. Thomas articulated the quoad se vs. quoad nos distinction, arguing that the quoad se is effectively subordinate to the quoad nos, which I have come to realize is a seriously defective position. It's almost like a theological phenomenology.
As Vatican I taught about the process of supernatural faith, human beings use natural reason to identify the True Church founded by Christ from the rational motives of credibility, and then this Church determines who holds authority in it.
Traditional Catholics have come to the conclusion that the Conciliar Church lacks the Marks of the True Church of Christ and lacks those motives of credibility, that aspect of the process of faith that is rooted in natural reason.
Imagine for a second that Vatican II had never happened, and that there had never been a New Mass. Within this Church, then, we had a Jorge Bergoglio come to office. He doesn't teach error or heresy, but he's spouting heresies in his interviews with Scalfari or on his papal plane trips. In that kind of scenario, it's not our concern, nor is it our problem, and not our duty to address. We let the Cardinals handle it.
Another scenario that sheds light upon the matter is this. Let's look at one Cardinal Richard Cushing. That guy was as manifest a heretic as they get. "No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense." ... and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Did he remain the Cardinal/Archbishop of Boston? According to straight SVism, he did not. Yet most of the dogmatic SVs hold that he rightly disciplined Father Feeney. But by SV criteria, the man was not the Archbishop of Boston. Or was he? He was never removed from office by the Pope. Priests continued to receive jurisdiction from him for the Sacraments. And so forth. SVs need to answer what the status of a pre-Vatican II manifest heretic bishop who was not deposed by Rome (there were many such) ... and that status is analogous to the status of the post-V2 papal claimants.
-
Related question, if we know, how do we know which popes were the true popes during the Great Western Schism?
Also, if Urban VI was the true pope, peacefully accepted, but subsequently rejected by 15 cardinals, what does that make those cardinals if the person of the pope is a dogmatic fact?
Certainly they can't be called neither schismatics nor heretics for doubting the validity of the election.
At the time, there was a lot of FUD regarding what took place at the various "elections," and a lot of material error regarding the situation, but an analysis of the facts in hindsight (which is famously said to be 20/20) reveals the truth.
We have other scenarios that are problematic, 2 or 3 different situations where a living Pope was taken into exile, and a successor elected to replace him and "universally accepted" as such, while the pope was still a live, and in one case where the living pope had openly protested his replacement. Clearly the original pope was still the pope because the Church cannot depose a pope. This militates against the notion of "universal acceptance" establishing dogmatic fact.
I'm inclined to agree with the theologians who hold that the legitimacy of any given pope can only be knowable with a moral certainty, and that where the dogmatic aspect comes into play is the Church's acceptance of him as the rule of faith, as even Billot, one of the most famous proponents of UA, admits.
-
At the time, there was a lot of FUD regarding what took place at the various "elections," and a lot of material error regarding the situation, but an analysis of the facts in hindsight (which is famously said to be 20/20) reveals the truth.
We have other scenarios that are problematic, 2 or 3 different situations where a living Pope was taken into exile, and a successor elected to replace him and "universally accepted" as such, while the pope was still a live, and in one case where the living pope had openly protested his replacement. Clearly the original pope was still the pope because the Church cannot depose a pope. This militates against the notion of "universal acceptance" establishing dogmatic fact.
I'm inclined to agree with the theologians who hold that the legitimacy of any given pope can only be knowable with a moral certainty, and that where the dogmatic aspect comes into play is the Church's acceptance of him as the rule of faith, as even Billot, one of the most famous proponents of UA, admits.
Can you go more into details of this?