Mithrandylan,
I do recognize the difference between us.
You, the sedevacantists, begin on the basis of the Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law and then try to support it with the Moral Law.
I, on the Scriptural Foundation Pillar of Recognize and Resist, begin on the basis of the Moral Law and then support it with the Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law.
Facts:
- The Moral Law is the higher science than the Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law.
- The Moral Law gives substance to the Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law.
- The Moral Law can sit by itself not needing the Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law; though when in its proper order, there is harmony.
In contrast:
- The Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law is the lesser science than the Moral Law.
- The Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law depends on the Moral Law for substance and guidance.
- The Traditional Pillar and Ecclesiastical Law cannot sit by itself without the Moral Law; when upside down, not in its proper order, there is disorder.
Conclusion:
- The sedevacantist position is in disorder.
Who said I was a sedevacantist? Anyways, I have no idea what this reply is supposed to mean. Is this some psychotheological analysis?
I haven't a clue what your point is here, so I really don't know what to say to you. Are you trying to cast doubt onto the Church's laws, to make them seem as if they do not cause the effects which they clearly state they do? I certainly hope not! The Church's ecclesiastical laws are informed by the Divine Law, and are also part of Her ordinary magisterium, to which all Catholics owe assent. Point: we can trust the Church's laws.
I wrote you a novella, Maccabees. Addressed a lot of specific points. Maybe we can get back to the specifics?
To refresh your memory on a few key points that you have yet to sufficiently address:
1) Moral certainty makes a conscience act safely. Sedevacantists cannot be blamed of being rash or presumptuous if they are morally certain that a given claimant is not the pope
2) Doubts must be resolved before one can act
2.1) Considering the nature of jurisdiction, a doubtful superior cannot be treated as if he were a legitimate superior, i.e., a doubtful pope is no pope
2.3) ["A doubtful pope is no pope" is not the same as having moral certainty that a man isn't the pope, but the practical effect is the same]
3) It is evident that Bergoglio (though we could equally say JPII, PVI or BXVI) has publicly expressed heresy.
4) Heretics are forbidden from office, and if they defect while holding an office, they lose their office by that fact, and by more than one operation of law, and by more than one "set" of laws (since heretics are not members of the Church both as an effect of Divine Law and ecclesiastical law)
5) How can one have moral certainty that a person who was raised a Catholic, educated in Catholic seminary and spent his entire life around religion is not aware (i.e., ignorant of) the most elementary dogmas of the faith?
-----
Sedevacantism is not disordered at all, it is perfectly logical. That doesn't mean it's necessarily true, but given the premises, the conclusion follows necessarily. What is disordered is to claim everything that the sedevacantists claim, but deny the conclusion.
Mithrandylan,
If you are not a sedevacantist, I do apologize. You do write in a staunch position as a sedevacantist. Are you though a sedevacantist?
Yes I have addressed this, and these, questions many times; however, you do not wish to associate the answer to what you are looking for...I’m sorry for that.
Your whole premise, and the sedevacantists, is faulty; therefore, the conclusion is faulty; and you wish others to be entrapped in that philosophy.
Sedevacantist submit they can be wrong in their conclusions, as you have admitted to, and operate on private interpretation, from the opinions of the canonists (...) i.e. from the Traditional Pillar (fathers of the Church...) and the Ecclesiastical Laws.
Sedevacantists, as human beings, who err, have NO, I repeat NO, moral certitude in the absolute judgment on God's highest authority in the Church; that belongs to God alone. Nor do they have any basis to judge at all the authority of God and His Chair. You invoke and provide plentiful opinions from the texts of Law; they must be prepared, as you do, and submitted to the Church authorities. If you cannot do that because of a “block” in the process, then you, and we, must wait until God removes that “block”.
For the sedevacantist movement to “act” anyway to eclipse the authority of God, the Pope, sets itself up as an independent class and a "Legalistic" movement; which is a hindrance to the need in front of them.
There are no contradictions in God, in the Faith, and in this crisis to understand that the Pope was placed there by God’s providence. To associate this is not a contradiction. How and why he got there is NOT in our realm of understanding; but only speculation and assumption.
As it is, Sedevacantists weigh heavily on, and conclude on, these “speculation and assumptions”; that is why, in addition to, being built on a faulty premise; and thus resides on a faulty conclusion.
A story of doubt. One day, we were told that there is a very hungry man-eating lion that someone thought he saw go behind a door. Though he was in doubt, not remembering which of the many doors the lion went behind, we were told that everyone needed to open all the doors to find out where he is. Who now is morally “certain” that the lion is not behind those doors? Do you have a doubt in the situation? Do you want to open one of the doors…?
Doubt is doubt; and remains so. There is no moral “certitude” otherwise.
May God bless you and your family.
Maccabees,
You said that "the whole premise" was wrong. Do you know what premise that is? First, it ought to be said that there is more than one argument to advance the sedevacantist thesis, or at least advance it enough to sufficiently illustrate that the conciliar papacies are dubious. I have focused almost entirely on the argument which I think is the most obvious: they are manifest heretics, manifests heretics are not Catholics and therefore may not hold office in the Church, (the papacy is an office in the Church), ergo... they do not hold it.
Surely you agree that heretics are not Catholics.
Do you also agree that non-Catholics cannot hold office in the Chucrh? I'm sure you do.
Then, what is immediately at hand is whether or not they are heretics. If they are, they can't possibly be popes. And by heretics, I mean manifest heretics, i.e.,
a person who, while still holding the title of Christian who publicly denies or doubts a de fide teaching of the Church (that is, something which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith) while simultaneously being aware of what the Church actually teaches (in other words, they are not ignorant of the teaching they are doubting or denying).As far as "private interpretation" is concerned, I would not say that the case against the conciliar popes is private interpretation. It is private "opinion"
inasmuch as it is a theory that, at least to this point, has only been publicly advanced by those without a mission from the Church (with the possible exception of Bishop de Castro Meyer) and is therefore an opinion which does not bind any Catholic the way that the Church's magisterium binds. That does not mean that you can disregard it
prima facie. As concerns the theologians and canonists opinions, you should be careful not to dismiss them so readily. There is a reason that sedevacantists cite theologians: the theologians support their case! Which theologians have you cited in your argument, which becomes more and more vague as this thread goes on? The approved theologians teach our priests, who eventually become bishops, whose teaching, when unanimous is an act of the infallible ordinary magisterium. Their opinions should not be dismissed as "mere opinions." If you have another approved source which argues against my sources, cite it. Otherwise, all you can offer are nagging doubts, i.e., "what ifs."
Regarding your comment about having no moral certitude, I can only gather that you do not know what moral certainty is, and I'll have to refer you back to my long post where I quoted McHugh and Callan. Leaving that aside for the time being, I agree with all my heart that this must be resolved by the authorities competent to do so, and I'm not sure what I've said that would lead you to believe that I don't. But what you are pointing out here is not a flaw in the thesis, you are only pointing out what is already known and obvious, that the crisis will not be resolved without the intervention of whatever faithful bishops are left.
You said:
"For the sedevacantist movement to “act” anyway to eclipse the authority of God, the Pope, sets itself up as an independent class and a "Legalistic" movement; which is a hindrance to the need in front of them."
How do the sedevacantists act? They pray their rosaries, they go to mass, they do exactly what the non-sedevacantist does. No authority is being eclipsed. I asked a while back if you attend the NO? I assume you don't. This sword cuts both ways. By what authority do you have to declare that a liturgy of the Catholic Church provokes impiety? Don't you know that the Council of Trent issues an anathema to anyone who says such? The private judgement made by the sedevacantist towards the conciliar popes is exactly the same in principle as the judgement non-sedevacantist Catholics have made regarding VII, the NO Mass and all of the other conciliar pomps. What authority do
you presume? Examine your own position of non-attendance and non adherence to the NO liturgy and it's teachings and you should easily come to see how the same principles guide the sedevacantist in his decision.
You said:
"There are no contradictions in God, in the Faith, and in this crisis to understand that the Pope was placed there by God’s providence. To associate this is not a contradiction. How and why he got there is NOT in our realm of understanding; but only speculation and assumption."
Of course there are no contradictions in God or the faith.
Everything that happens is a matter of God's providence, that does not mean these men are popes. That is the point of contention. It is a contradiction to say that a non-Catholic can hold office in the Catholic Church. If they are Catholics, then they can be pope. If they aren't, that fact alone excludes them.
Your sentimental take on doubt means nothing in the face of approved Catholic theologians. I quoted Wernz and Vidal in my last post, who gave ample reason why a doubtful pope can not be treated like a pope (i.e., he commands no obedience). Do you disagree with them? If a doubtful pope is owed obedience, then how do you justify the SSPX position which is that a certain pope is NOT owed obedience? Don't answer that question, because I'm sure you mis-spoke. Instead, please do focus on either showing that the conciliar popes are not heretics (which is really the way to make your case, instead of appealing to nagging doubts, which mean nothing) or cite a theologian, saint, pontiff or anyone who teaches that a doubtful superior is to be regarded as a true superior until he is proven to not be a superior.
May the Divine Infant bless you this Christmas.
(will be off to midnight mass soon, will probably not be replying soon).
Topic: "Recognize and Resist" or Sedevacantism? (Read 22331 times)