Author Topic: "Recognize and Resist" or Sedevacantism? (Read 22440 times)

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #60 on:** December 19, 2013, 12:10:04 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

Clemens Maria, I've shown you in the past the innumerable sources and traditional authorities that contradict your viewpoint, what would be the point of indefinitely multiplying them over again?

Which viewpoint are you referring to? I have more than one.

Quote from: Nishant

The power of jurisdiction is legislative, judicial and coercive. This habitual governing authority presupposes a perpetual relation between ruler and ruled, between those who govern and those who obey. This is absolutely necessary for acting as judges or making a judicial determination. Bishops without ordinary jurisdiction and clerics without a mission, who rely only on supplied jurisdiction for individual sacramental acts, cannot make such a judicially binding determination.

I'll concede that even if you give no docuмentation for it.

Quote from: Nishant

Also, the thesis that there are no more Roman clergy, i.e. clerics incardinated into the diocese of Rome by a former Roman Pontiff who are not heretics is heterodox and directly contradictory to defined Catholic doctrine. St. Robert Bellarmine taught this plainly and Pope Sixtus IV formally defined the same, the Roman Church as a particular Church is indefectible.

Let me help you out with the docuмentation here. See Monsignor Joseph Fenton's article from 1950: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=608:

Quote

The traditional thesis that Rome is and always will be the primatial See of the Catholic Church received its most important development in St. Robert Bellarmine's Controversies. St. Robert devoted the fourth chapter of the fourth book of his treatise De Romano Pontifice to the question De Romana ecclesia particulari. His main thesis in this chapter was the contention that not only the Roman Pontiff, but also the particular or local Church of the city of Rome, must be considered as incapable of error in matters of faith.7

In the course of this chapter St. Robert exposed as "a pious and most probable teaching" the opinion that "Peter's cathedra could not be taken away from Rome,"8 and that, for this reason, the individual Roman Church must be considered as both infallible and indefectible. In support of this thesis which, incidentally, he considered as an opinion and not as entirely certain, St. Robert appealed to the doctrine that "God Himself has ordered Peter's Apostolic See to be fixed in Rome."9

St. Robert by no means closed the door entirely on the thesis of Dominic Soto. He admits the possibility that the divine mandate according to which St. Peter assumed command of the Church in Rome might have been merely a kind of "inspiration" from God, rather than a definite and express order issued by Our Lord Himself. Always insistent that his thesis was not a matter of divine faith, he repeated his contention that it was most probable and pie credendum "that the See has been established at Rome by divine and immutable precept."10

It appears St. Robert Bellarmine was considerably less sure about it than you are.

Quote from: Nishant

The view that all the Ordinaries of the universal Church have fallen into heresy is also by itself heretical, because it is opposed to the Apostolicity of the Catholic Church.

Docuмentation please? I've asked you to docuмent that one before and you failed to do so. I hope you are more accurate with this statement than you are about St. Bellarmine's teaching on the indefectibility of the local Roman Church. But I have another request, can you prove that Bishops ordained by Bishops who have valid apostolic succession (e.g. ++Lefebvre, ++Thuc, +Gonzalez, etc) somehow failed to receive a canonical mission? Isn't that a novelty? When did that ever happen before in the history of the Church? I understand how a schismatic bishop cannot confer a canonical mission but how is it that a faithful Catholic bishop who was unjustly suspended simply for keeping the Faith could fail to confer a canonical mission? Unless we are going to admit that the consecration was illicit. It seems to me that either the consecration was licit and there was a canonical mission or it was illicit and there was no canonical mission. A licit consecration with no canonical mission is a novelty. If there was a canonical mission then the apostolicity of the Church is not threatened by a claim that the Conciliar bishops have defected.

Quote from: Nishant

The only competent authorities to judge in the matter are the Ordinaries of the Church, the bishops appointed by a former Pope who have not fallen into heresy, and the Roman clergy, those incardinated into the local diocese by a former Pope.

If by the "matter" you mean the status of the papacy then there is one additional group that you have left off and that is the universal Church. I got that from Journet:

Quote

Charles Journet (1891-1975): “During a vacancy of the Apostolic See,
neither the Church nor the Council can contravene the provisions
already laid down to determine the valid mode of election. However, in
case of permission (for example if the Pope has provided nothing
against it), or in case of ambiguity (for example, if it is unknown
who the true Cardinals are or who the true Pope is, as was the case at
the time of the Great Schism), the power ‘of applying the Papacy to
such and such a person’ devolves on the universal Church, the Church
of God.” (The Church of the Incarnate Word)

Quote from: Nishant

If you hold a future judgment may be possible, that is not heretical although it gets progressively unlikelier the longer the alleged vacancy is prolonged.

I haven't decided 100% on the sede vacantist position. I'm leaning towards it but since there has been no formal declaration I don't feel obligated to hold it. But I'm absolutely convinced that I do not need to recognize a heretic as anything other than a heretic outside the Church an completely incapable of sustaining any claim to an ecclesiastical office. As soon as a decision is made by the competent authorities we will be obligated to accept it.

Quote from: Nishant

But when you reject the only possible authorities, the Pope or those whom he in the past has appointed in one of the above ways, then you only unfortunately fall into only perpetual confusion.

You are confused, Nishant. Heretics and schismatics cannot have any authority in the Church. That is Divine Law. Correct yourself.

Pete Vere · « **Reply #61 on:** December 19, 2013, 12:25:50 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Pete-

It seems to me, based on the reasons you adduce, that your real problem is that you cannot accept causes excusing from obedience to superiors (e.g., epikeia; necessity).

For some reason, you think it necessary to judge the superior before refusing to comply with an evil order.

Where does that come from?

The judgment is upon the order given, not the superior giving it.

-Sean

I think this is where Tradition comes in. If one looks at instances throughout the Church's history prior to Vatican II where state of emergency or epikeia was invoked to justify a course of action, they involve the following two conditions being met:

1 - The situation involves circuмstances unforeseen by the legislator in prohibiting the course of action now being considered.

2 - The individual or group pursuing the course of action were impeded from accessing the mind of the legislator.

In the situation involving the FSSPX, the mind of the legislator is clearly known. Not only that, it is clearly opposed to the course of action being pursued. Additionally, the superior is the Roman Pontiff or the Roman Pontiff gathered with the Church's bishops at an Ecuмenical Council.

And unlike with St. Athanasius and Pope Liberius example often put forward by R&R traditionalists, in which Liberius was clearly acting under duress (and thus morally impeded), in the case of Vatican II there is no evidence that Pope and Bishops were acting under duress at the Council.

Therefore, while I reject the ultimate conclusion drawn by sedevacantists (otherwise I would embrace the sedeprivationist position rather than the Ecclesia Dei position obviously), I agree with sedevacantism that arguing "state of necessity" or epikeia requires clear judgment of the superior.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #62 on:** December 19, 2013, 12:35:22 AM »

Quote from: Machabees

In other words, many here are trying to describe 4,000 years of Foundational Scriptural History that proves God's highest authority on this earth cannot be judged and removed by anyone but God Himself, or with grace, judged from another Pope.

That's true. No one can judge a true pope.

Quote from: Machabees

To judge that the Pope is a "heretic" and cannot hold the Chair that God put him in, is unjust without having tribunal evidence at your disposal and being a Pope yourself to judge another Pope; it then remains only a personal interpretation of things you heard and read.

That's false. If the claimant to the papacy is a heretic then he is not the pope by the law itself. Go read canon 188.4. It clearly says that a cleric tacitly resigns his office if he defects from the faith. Theologians and canon lawyers are universally agreed on that point. They only disagree on when he loses the office. Is it when the heresy/defection is made public or is it when the competent authorities make a formal declaration on the matter? It seems more probable to me that he loses the office the moment he makes his defection public.

Quote from: Machabees

In your above quote: "When a claimant to the papacy teaches that there is no Catholic God we have abundant reason to suspect that he is a heretic.", dreadful as that is, there are abundant examples in the Old Testament that God's highest authority of Kings, and also of Prophets, have also done the same in leading the Israelites into all kinds of sins and into idolatry. Salomon, Aaron, Saul, and other Kings and prophets (which I forgot their names at this moment) that have done such abominable things against the Faith. God still held them in the Chair of authority in order to use those abuses to chastise and purify his people (...).

In that context, wouldn't you agree?

No, canon law is very clear that public heretics cannot hold ecclesiastical offices.

Pete Vere · « **Reply #63 on:** December 19, 2013, 12:46:01 AM »

Sean:

If you are interested in exploring the supplied jurisdiction argument from a sedevacantist perspective, there is a rather interesting thread on this topic posted to Bellarmine Forums in which John Lane does a pretty good laying out the sedevacantist position:

http://sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1552&sid=47ad44bebf3dd60ec544e8f59b87a46b

Again, coming from an Ecclesia Dei perspective I obviously disagree with the sede position. However, John Lane does an excellent job laying out the more nuanced sede position on supplied jurisdiction:

http://sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1552&sid=47ad44bebf3dd60ec544e8f59b87a46b

Nishant · « **Reply #64 on:** December 19, 2013, 12:57:51 AM »

Sigh. You're running around in circles. The Fenton article, which I've cited to you in the past actually says this, if you'd read it in its entirety,

Quote

Actually the infallibility of the Roman Church is much more than a mere theological opinion. The proposition that "the Church of the city of Rome can fall into error" is one of the theses of Peter de Osma, formally condemned by Pope Sixtus IV as erroneous and as containing manifest heresy.[37]

So if we were to apply your own standards, you just became a manifest heretic and are outside the Church. Does that seem in accordance with justice to you?

That's why we have to distinguish between material and formal heresy and have to ascertain whether the element of pertinacity is present. Which is often a complicated matter. This is especially so in the case of the Roman Pontiff, who is not subject to canon law.

And the issue is even otherwise not remotely as you make it out, since many theologians have held God has a special providence in the case of the Pope, and the general rules don't apply to him.

Quote from: Suarez

“I affirm: if he were a heretic and incorrigible, the Pope would cease to be Pope just when a sentence was passed against him for his crime, by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church. This is the common opinion among the doctors ... In the first place, who ought to pronounce such a sentence? ... one must affirm that, as such, it pertains to all the Bishops of the Church, for, being the ordinary pastors and the pillars of the Church, one must consider that such a case concerns them. And since by divine law there is no greater reason to affirm that the matter is of more interest to these bishops than to those, and since by human law nothing has been established in the matter, one must necessarily sustain that the case refers to all, and even to the general council. That is the common opinion among the doctors”

If you've actually read Journet's work, you'd know this is what he means by the universal Church, the world's Ordinaries. And he says the same on the Roman clergy too.

Material and formal Apostolicity, jurisdiction and mission, it being a proper Papal power, all this are well known.

Quote from: CE

This Apostolic succession must be both material and formal; the material consisting in the actual succession in the Church, through a series of persons from the Apostolic age to the present; the formal adding the element of authority in the transmission of power. It consists in the legitimate transmission of the ministerial power conferred by Christ upon His Apostles. No one can give a power which he does not possess. Hence in tracing the mission of the Church back to the Apostles, no lacuna can be allowed, no new mission can arise; but the mission conferred by Christ must pass from generation to generation through an uninterrupted lawful succession ... jurisdiction is essential to the Apostolicity of mission

Also, what you say about mission and episcopal consecration is directly opposed to traditional doctrine, to what Archbishop Lefebvre and the four Bishops consecrated by him said then and have always said.

Quote from: Hermann

Succession may be material or formal. Material succession consists in the fact that there have never been lacking persons who have continuously been substituted for the Apostles ; formal succession consists in the fact that these substituted persons truly enjoy authority derived from the Apostles and received from him who is able to communicate it.

For someone to be made a successor of the Apostles and pastor of the Church, the power of order — which is always validly conferred by virtue of ordination — is not enough; the power of jurisdiction is also required, and this is conferred not by virtue of ordination but by virtue of a mission received from him to whom Christ has entrusted the supreme power over the universal Church.

Since only the Pope can bestow a mission on a Bishop, a Bishop must either be named or at least be confirmed by the Pope, otherwise he enjoys no power of jurisdiction, as Pope Pius XII also teaches. If a Bishop tried to do so without Papal mandate, that would be wrong. That was why Archbishop Lefebvre was careful to explain he was merely performing a consecration under epikeia but not bestowing the power of jurisdiction.

Bishop Tissier said the same and this is the Society's position. This is how the Society has always answered the objections to the consecrations. Even some of the Vatican's own canon lawyers conceded it.

Machabees · « **Reply #65 on:** December 19, 2013, 01:09:37 AM »

Quote from: crossbro

Machabees said:

Quote
To judge that the Pope is a "heretic" and cannot hold the Chair that God put him in, is unjust without having tribunal evidence at your disposal and being a Pope yourself to judge another Pope; it then remains only a personal interpretation of things you heard and read. Therefore, such a position cannot dispose of God's anointed. Even if we like it or not.

I would say it is not unjust to do so. Let me give you an example: I was at an RCIA meeting once when another sponsor started arguing in front of three priests that women could be priests. In this I can discern that this person is a heretic without having an official interpretation.

Atheists do not go to heaven because Jesus said they don't. The choice is clear, Jesus is a heretic or Pope Francis is. Pick one or the other.

Hello crossbro,

When the Church goes through the process of investigating and declaring someone a "heretic" it goes through a very long and tedious process; it could take years to complete; as had many times before. Also, the process is not designed to purposely declare someone a "heretic", it is designed to save them from their error; if not, then a declaration is made.

I'm sure that you can agree that to say that one is a "heretic' in itself is a very grave judgement on another person; it dams them to hell without a conversion. Isn't then also very grave to judge another without all of the evidence that forms the statement of that person of why they said it? Certainly, one can say somethings because one is ill informed; which is widespread today through error and propaganda.

None the less, isn't always wise and prudence to gather more information before judging another individual, especially if it is a higher authority, because the scandal of doing so can be greater than the accusation; is it not?

Machabees · « **Reply #66 on:** December 19, 2013, 02:22:35 AM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

Quote from: Machabees
In other words, many here are trying to describe 4,000 years of Foundational Scriptural History that proves God's highest authority on this earth cannot be judged and removed by anyone but God Himself, or with grace, judged from another Pope.

That's true. No one can judge a true pope.[/b]

Quote from: Machabees
To judge that the Pope is a "heretic" and cannot hold the Chair that God put him in, is unjust without having tribunal evidence at your disposal and being a Pope yourself to judge another Pope; it then remains only a personal interpretation of things you heard and read.

That's false. If the claimant to the papacy is a heretic then he is not the pope by the law itself. Go read canon 188.4. It clearly says that a cleric tacitly resigns his office if he defects from the faith. Theologians and canon lawyers are universally agreed on that point. They only disagree on when he loses the office. Is it when the heresy/defection is made public or is it when the competent authorities make a formal declaration on the matter? It seems more probable to me that he loses the office the moment he makes his defection public.

Quote from: Machabees
In your above quote: "When a claimant to the papacy teaches that there is no Catholic God we have abundant reason to suspect that he is a heretic.", dreadful as that is, there are abundant examples in the Old Testament that God's highest authority of Kings, and also of Prophets, have also done the same in leading the Israelites into all kinds of sins and into idolatry. Salomon, Aaron, Saul, and other Kings and prophets (which I forgot their names at this moment) that have done such abominable things against the Faith. God still held them in the Chair of authority in order to use those abuses to chastise and purify his people (...).

In that context, wouldn't you agree?

No, canon law is very clear that public heretics cannot hold ecclesiastical offices.

Hello Clemens Maria,

I am glad to read that you have not embraced fully the errors of the Sedevacantist position.

However, in your posts you unfortunately made the same arguments as they do. May I remind you, as a Catholic, our primary belief in the Faith on this matter is first accepting the Pope on God's authority. Then it is up to the Church and God's providence to manifest events if God so chose to dispose of him.

The Sedevacantist position is one of pride first; to judge God's authority to suit their understanding. Their premise is one of "legality" first (Canon law…); not on the Faith first (on God’s authority).

Here is an example. You have acknowledged above that one cannot judge a Pope: "Machabees said: ...Foundational Scriptural History that proves God's highest authority on this earth cannot be judged and removed by anyone but God Himself, or with grace, judged from another Pope." You responded correctly: "That's true. No one can judge a true pope."

Hold that thought for a moment: "That's true. No one can judge a true pope."

Yet, in your very next sentence you made the same slogan, of the very contradiction of the Sedevacantist position, to make a “pre-judgment" that he is not a “true” Pope; that in your mind, private interpretation, he is already a "heretic".

In Catholicism that cannot be. The existence of the Catholic Church is for the salvation of souls; not to pre-judge. We just agreed that the Pope was installed on God’s authority; therefore, he is a true Pope. As such, there is no place to pre-judge the Pope to say he is not; especially with such a condemnation of the soul going to hell-fire without a conversion before death.

The scandal is immense without a just trial to flush out his intentions and understanding of such and such a statement; he very well could be mis-taught from bad superiors and professors above him with no intention to do contrary to God’s Faith if he knew it otherwise; that could be possible could it not? If so, can you now see that the Sedevacantist position is erroneous to pre-judge the Pope, God’s anointed, without God providing a just trial to give him the opportunity to convert from the alleged error?

The honesty that Sedevacantists do not want to address is that, like you admitted to, you cannot judge another Pope; it is on God’s authority. So how can the Sedevacantists make such an irrational and imprudent judgment to say he is a “heretic” without a just tribunal? Simply, because Sedevacantism is the Protestant error of independence within the Sanctuary.

I hope this helps.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #67 on:** December 19, 2013, 08:37:56 AM »

Nishant,

Suarez held an uber-minority opinion that an heretical pope would remain pope until he was deposed by a council of bishops. That is why he is really the only theologian you will see quoted to defend a public heretic holding the papal office. Consider also that Suarez is wrong, since VI taught that the Holy See is judged by no one. If this had been clear in Suarez's time, dollars to doughnuts he would not have taught it. Additionally, Suarez may have been guilty of being deceived, since to support his position he cites that St Peter taught that a pope heretic must be deposed (from St. Clement's epistle). Yet St Clement never teaches this. So, Suarez opinion on this is highly dubious at best.

As concerns formal succession, I disagree with Clemens Maria and anyone else who suggests some variety of the idea that the traditional bishops have it. But I also reject your normal argument (which you are admittedly expressing more clearly than Michael Davies, who seems to try to touch on it but then opts rather to focus on selective copying and pasting of canonists and then draws his own conclusions) that makes an extended interregnum impossible on the grounds that apostolicity would cease to exist.

Facts:

There exist today, men who were lawfully appointed by a lawful pope, regardless of when a given sedevacantist thinks the interregnum began. When Pius XII, John XXIII, or even possibly Paul VI.

Resignation must be accepted by a lawful superior. If one of these afforementioned bishops resigned to someone who could not hold office (which is very likely, considering the effects of canon 188/4 and the latae sententiae excommunication incurred by the fact of public heresy) then such a bishop still retains his jurisdiction, and he obviously has orders.

There is also the supply of jurisdiction necessary to appoint a bishop, which would occur according to canon 209 in the event that an anti-pope attempted to fill a vacant see with a Catholic bishop. According to canon error, the anti-pope would be supplied jurisdiction for the act, and presuming the candidate could hold office, he would, and he would receive the power of jurisdiction attached to it.

The point is, apostolicity, even if an interregnum began with the death of Pius XII, has not disappeared. If you wish to argue that it will eventually disappear, there is still the supply of jurisdiction for an anti-pope appointing bishops to a see that would preserve it even longer.

Maccabes,

Please read my reply carefully.

"May I remind you, as a Catholic, our primary belief in the Faith on this matter is first accepting the Pope on God's authority. Then it is up to the Church and God's providence to manifest events if God so chose to dispose of him."

We accept all truths of the faith on God's authority. Who the pope is, or whether there is a pope, is not a truth of the faith, it's a matter of fact. It has as much effect on the state of a person's soul as whether or not he thinks six million, three million, or an hundred thousand Jews died in the h0Ɩ0cαųst. However, those things which are found in the deposit of faith (i.e., the Church's magisterium, ordinary and extraordinary, and the Sacred Scriptures) we all accept on God's authority, because we accept that the Catholic Church expresses His will and His teachings to us. Among these teachings are the effects of what happen to manifest heretics, and it is certain that they lose their membership in the Church and cannot hold office. That is not a private opinion that I, Clemens Maria, you or Nishant or anyone else have conjured up, that is so clearly and blatantly the mind of the Church according to her saints, doctors, popes, theologians, laws and scriptures. So if one wishes to argue against a prolonged interregnum, one ought to do so by arguing that a given conciliar pope is not a manifest heretic. If he's not a manifest heretic, then he's probably pope. If he is a manifest heretic, he is certainly not the pope.

"The Sedevacantist position is one of pride first; to judge God's authority to suit their understanding. Their premise is one of "legality" first (Canon law…); not on the Faith first (on God’s authority)."

Do you attend the Novus Ordo? I'm assuming not, so what authority do you use to make this judgement? Do you follow the teachings of religious liberty and ecuмenism, as well as the pseudo-branch theory found in the VII docuмents? Again, I'm assuming not, so by what authority do you make this judgement? See, this cuts two ways. Naturally, you should respond that VII and the NOM are in direct conflict with the Catholic faith, and you should use docuмents such as Quo Primum or the historical reality of Cranmer's condemned ordo, as well as the teachings of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century popes as evidence supporting your position. Yet, in kind, the sedevacantist does the exact same thing by citing Church law and the teachings of the ordinary magisterium (heretics are not Catholics, and non-Catholics cannot participate in governing the Church, ergo) to support his position. But focus less on sedevacantists and more on sedevacantism, yes? Surely you could not find yourself arguing in a fruitful fashion with a neocat who simply wishes to psycho-analyze the repressed motives and personal idiosyncrasies of trads in general when you want to discuss with him whether or not the VII religion is Catholic!

When it is said that no one can judge the pope, it is meant that no council of bishops can put a pope on trial, because if one is subject to a trial, it means that one is under the jurisdiction of those who have put him on trial-- and the pope has jurisdiction of all. When VI taught that no one can judge the pope, it did not mean that no one can recognize a fact apparent before them, and respond in kind. It meant that the pope is not subject to ecclesiastical trial, because no one has jurisdiction over him. However, if the VII popes aren't really popes, then the axiom of not judging them wouldn't even apply in that sense, would it? Furthermore, to illustrate that "not judging the pope" does not mean what you think it does, look at Denz. 1105, where Pope Alexander VII teaches that you may denounce Peter if it is evident that he is an heretic, even if you cannot prove it.

"The existence of the Catholic Church is for the salvation of souls; not to pre-judge. We just agreed that the Pope was installed on God’s authority; therefore, he is a true Pope. As such, there is no place to pre-judge the Pope to say he is not; especially with such a condemnation of the soul going to hell-fire without a conversion before death."

No one thinks that the Church exists to give us the power to "pre-judge" so I don't know why you are bringing that up. The "power" to "pre-judge" is built into human reason. We have an intellect, and senses by which we receive information and then form judgements on what we see. Our Lord warns us of false shepherds, wolves in sheep's clothing. Did He warn us not to use our reason to discover who they are? Why would He warn us in the first place, if not because we are naturally imbued with the faculties to make a judgement on such a thing? The fact of damnation logically follows from realizing someone is not a Catholic. No one has condemned any of these conciliar popes to Hell, but to some it is apparent that they are not Catholic, and pending a converstion they WILL burn. If you witness a murder, must you wait until the murderer is convicted in a court of law to believe he is a murderer? If he is a murderer, does it not follow that he is also going to Hell as a necessary consequence of that crime (pending conversion, of course)?

"The scandal is immense without a just trial to flush out his intentions and understanding of such and such a statement; he very well could be mis-taught from bad superiors and professors above him with no intention to do contrary to God’s Faith if he knew it otherwise; that could be possible could it not? If so, can you now see that the Sedevacantist position is erroneous to pre-judge the Pope, God’s anointed, without God providing a just trial to give him the opportunity to convert from the alleged error"

What's up for debate is precisely whether or not he IS God's appointed. Whether or not he's mistaught is immaterial to whether or not he's the pope. If he's a male baptized Catholic who was lawfully elected, he's the pope, full stop. There are actually very few requirements to be pope. Three, really. Male. Baptized. Catholic. Fulfill these requisites and get elected, and you're the pope. You or I could be pope. But if one of these three is missing, whether it's because he had the misfortune of being born female, the misfortune of never being baptized, or the misfortune of not being raised in the Catholic faith, he can't be pope. But do you really think that someone who went through a decade of traditional seminary doesn't KNOW that there is one Church of Christ, the Catholic Church? And that there is no salvation outside of Her? Do you really think they don't know that the Church teaches that?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #68 on:** December 19, 2013, 08:53:49 AM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: SeanJohnson
Pete-

It seems to me, based on the reasons you adduce, that your real problem is that you cannot accept causes excusing from obedience to superiors (e.g., epikeia; necessity).

For some reason, you think it necessary to judge the superior before refusing to comply with an evil order.

Where does that come from?

The judgment is upon the order given, not the superior giving it.

-Sean

I think this is where Tradition comes in. If one looks at instances throughout the Church's history prior to Vatican II where state of emergency or epikeia was invoked to justify a course of action, they involve the following two conditions being met:

1 - The situation involves circuмstances unforeseen by the legislator in prohibiting the course of action now being considered.

2 - The individual or group pursuing the course of action were impeded from accessing the mind of the legislator.

In the situation involving the FSSPX, the mind of the legislator is clearly known. Not only that, it is clearly opposed to the course of action being pursued. Additionally, the superior is the Roman Pontiff or the Roman Pontiff gathered with the Church's bishops at an Ecuмenical Council.

And unlike with St. Athanasius and Pope Liberius example often put forward by R&R traditionalists, in which Liberius was clearly acting under duress (and thus morally impeded), in the case of Vatican II there is no evidence that Pope and Bishops were acting under duress at the Council.

Therefore, while I reject the ultimate conclusion drawn by sedevacantists (otherwise I would embrace the sedeprivationist position rather than the Ecclesia Dei position obviously), I agree with sedevacantism that arguing "state of necessity" or epikeia requires clear judgment of the superior.

Pete-

The argument you are making was originally published by the FSSP, so it is not surprising, given your proclaimed adhesion to the PCED position, that you raise it here.

However, it is roundly refuted by the SSPX here (link to full article, well worth reading, appended at bottom of post):

C. REFUTATION OF MORE FALSE OBJECTIONS

Hence, it is not true that “it is only permitted to use epikeia if the legislator is inaccessible,” as we read in the tract, Du sacre episcopal contra la volonté du Pape (p.49), published by the Fraternity of St. Peter. What it says is true for epikeia in the strict or improper sense, but not for epikeia in the broad and proper sense. In the case of its improper (or popular) sense, epikeia persumes that authority – out of its kindness – does not wish to oblige, although it has the power to do so and hence, if the lawmaker is accessible, there is the duty to ask him, given that it is a question of “his will which is free” (Suarez, cit.). On the other hand, epikeia in the broad and proper sense concerns those cases in which authority cannot oblige, even if it wishes to do so, and the subject finds himself in the moral impossibility of obeying. Hence, epikeia is “necessary” (Suarez), and therefore recourse to the legislator is per se not obligatory. Indeed, it must be left out whenever it is foreseen that the superior would try to make his command binding despite the harm to the person making the request or to anyone else. In such a case, in fact, we are dealing not with the will of the superior, but his “power, which is not free” (Suarez, cit.).

Even less true is what we read in De Rome et d’ailleurs that a “state of necessity” arises when it is impossible to contact the superior, which presupposes a certain urgency in the decision to be taken.34 This is true for epikeia in the improper or popular sense, but even then it is true only in part because the state of necessity does not arise from the impossibility of contacting the superior, but it exists independently of that impossibility of contacting him, and it persists independently of an eventual refusal from the superior.

To settle the question, we quote Fr. Tito Centi, O.P.:

Moralists have sought to fix the criteria to be laid down for the application of epikeia. In substance, these criteria come down to the three following cases: a) when in a particular situation, the prescriptions of the positive law are in opposition to a superior law which binds one to regard higher interests [i.e., epikeia in the proper sense]; b) when, for reason of exceptional circuмstances, submission to the positive law would be too burdensome, without there resulting a good proportionate to the sacrifice being demanded; c) when, without becoming evil as in the first case and without imposing an unjustified heroism as in the second case, the observance of the positive law runs into special and unforeseen difficulties which render it, as it turns out, harder than it should have been according to the intention of the legislator.35

The grave spiritual necessity of many souls comes under the first case "a)" above, the case of positive law which by the force of extraordinary circuмstances becomes "evil" because "it is in opposition to a superior law binding one to regard higher interests" (i.e., epikeia in the proper sense - Ed.). The authors of the tract, on the contrary, like the writer of the article in the above-mentioned publication, seem to admit only the second and the third cases, "b)" and "c)" (i.e., epikeia in the improper or popular sense), which have nothing to do with the case of Archbishop Lefebvre. In the first case "a)," which is the case of Archbishop Lefebvre, epikeia coincides with equity, and, hence involves the moral impossibility of obeying and is, as we have already seen, a right [besides being a duty]. On the other hand, in the second and third cases noted in "b)" and "c)," epikeia is simply identified with clemency or moderation in the application of laws and in the exercise of authority.18

We are in exceptional circuмstances and, therefore, must ascend to higher principles which are not preached every day and which, therefore, are unknown to many, but which, nevertheless, are able to be found succinctly summarized in any treatise on the general principles of law or moral theology. Thus for example, in the Institutiones Morales Alphonsianae of Fr. Clement Marc we read:

A place is given to epikeia whenever the law makes itself harmful or too burdensome. In the first case [i.e., harmful], the superior really could not oblige and hence epikeia is necessary [(§174) which is the case as it concerns us here - Ed.].

In Regarding Principles of Moral Theology (III, n.199), Noldin says:

It is said that the purpose of the law ceases "contraire" [through contrary custom - Ed.] when its observation is harmful. If the purpose of the law in a particular case ceases "contraire," the law ceases [to oblige]. The reason is that if the purpose of the law ceases "contraire," then one has the right to use epikeia.

Finally, any manual explaining the principles of Canon Law deals with the cessation "ab intrinseco" of the law, that is to say, with the law that ceases to oblige out of the simple fact that it is in such-and-such a case harmful, and not because the lawmaker decrees that it should cease, or grants a dispensation from it. Such is exactly the case of the state of necessity, which is the strongest reason excusing one from obedience and strict observance of the law.36 This is especially true when this state of necessity arises from the duty, rooted in one's state, to help many souls in grave spiritual necessity, because "the salvation of souls is, for spiritual society, the ultimate end towards which all its laws and institutions are oriented."16 This is true for the entire hierarchy of the Church, top to bottom.

http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #69 on:** December 19, 2013, 09:54:58 AM »

I ought to have prefaced the last post with this introductory quote from the same article:

We saw in the first installment of this article (SISINONO, "The 1988 Consecrations: Part I," The Angelus, July 1999) that a bishop who experiences a state of grave general necessity of souls and consecrates another bishop "given that he has the power of Order" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Supplement, Q.20, A.1, op.cit. in, "The 1988 Consecrations: Part 1") is not questioning the primacy of jurisdiction of the pope. We have seen that he has every right to presume support for such an act required by extraordinary circuмstances "in order that adequate provision be made" (ST, op. cit. in Part 1) for the salvation of souls and for the common good. The salvation of souls is in fact the supreme law of the Church and it is certain that the Church "supplies" the jurisdiction lacking whenever it is a question of providing for the "public and general necessity of the faithful" (F.M. Cappello, SJ ., Summa Juris Canonici, vol. I, p.258, n.258, §2, op. cit. in Part 1).

It makes no difference to what we have just said if recourse to the pope is made materially impossible by external circuмstances, as in the historical cases recalled by us [in Part 1].

But it is the pope himself who is favoring or promoting a course for the Church infected by neo-Modernism which threatens the goods fundamental to souls, goods indispensable for the salvation of souls, e.g., faith and morals. If the pope himself is the cause or partial-cause, and even, given his supreme authority, the ultimate cause of the grave and general spiritual necessity in which there is no hope of help from the lawful pastors, then what effect will recourse to the pope obtain in such circuмstances? He will be physically accessible, but morally inaccessible. Recourse to him will be certainly physically possible but morally impossible, and if it be attempted, it will result naturally in the pope's saying "No" to the act which the extraordinary circuмstances require "in order that adequate provision be made" (ST, op. cit. in Part 1) for the grave general necessity of souls. Any different behavior on the part of the pope presupposes, in fact, repentance and a humble admission of his own responsibility given that the act in question - i.e., the consecration of bishops -would not be required if the pope himself was not in some measure co-responsible for the state of grave and general necessity.

Therefore, it remains for us to ask if the subject in such circuмstances is bound to obey the "No" of the pope despite the harm threatening so many souls. In other words, does the "No" of the pope exonerate him from the duty under pain of mortal sin imposed by divine law upon whomever has the possibility to provide help for souls in the state of grave and general necessity where there is no hope of help from lawful pastors? This is the question that finds its answer in the Catholic doctrine on the state of necessity. This will become clear as we explain the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh principles of the Church's teaching on this point. [The first, second, and third principles were discussed in Part l-Ed.]

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #70 on:** December 19, 2013, 10:02:12 AM »

6th Principle: It is the character of necessity to place the subject in the physical or moral impossibility of obeying

It is certain that God binds nobody in a state of necessity, but the human legislator "can say 'no' without reason and in violation of natural and eternal law"6 and therefore they can in fact forbid an action required by the state of necessity. But, since the pope's "No" is powerless to do away with the grave general necessity of souls and hence the associated duty sub gravito go to their help, the subject, especially if he is a bishop or priest, then finds himself in the moral and absolute impossibility of obeying, because he could not obey without himself sinning and harming others. Hence, it is the character of the state of necessity "to create a sort of impotency whereby it is impossible to do something commanded or not do some- thing forbidden."7

This is not, in fact, the case of authority not being bound to oblige because" summum ius summa iniuria," or one which issues an inopportune command lacking in prudence, but which nevertheless people could be bound to obey all the same in view of the common good. This is, on the other hand, the case of authority that cannot oblige, because its command is opposed to a precept of divine and natural law "more grave and obliging."8 In such a case to obey the law or the legislator would be "evil and a sin" (Suarez, De Legibus, L. VI, c. VII, n.8). St. Thomas calls obedience in such a case "evil" (SI; 11-11, Q120, A.1). Cajetan refers to it as a "vice" (Cajetan in 1.2, q.96, a.6). Hence, refusal to obey becomes a duty (i.e" inoboedientia debita).9

The reality of such a case is not that the subject is disobeying. It is better said that he is obeying a higher and more compelling command issuing from divine authority, which "commands us to regard higher interests."10 Human authority , in fact, "is neither the first nor the only rule of morality ."6 Earthly authority is a" norma normata, "that is to say, a rule itself regulated by divine law, and hence when human authority, "contrary to natural and eternal law,"6 says "No," then disobeying man in order to obey God becomes a duty."11

4. 7th Principle: He who, constrained by the state of necessity, does not obey, is not questioning the lawful exercise of authority

For there to be disobedience, the command or prohibition must be lawful. This is the case when the Roman Pontiff or the Ordinary have the power to make the command or prohibition and, at the same time, the subjects are bound to obey the command or prohibition.12 But, we have seen: 1) that even for the pope the principle holds that, when the application of a law "would be contrary to the common good or to natural law [and in our case even divine-positive law-Ed.]...it is not in the power of the legislator to oblige,"13 and, 2) that the state of necessity, especially the necessity of which we are speaking, creates in the subject "a condition of impotency or impossibility [in this case morally and absolutely-Ed.] of doing a thing commanded or not doing a thing forbidden."7

Therefore, the command or prohibition of a superior which, by reason of extraordinary circuмstances, results in harm to souls and the common good, as well as being contrary to the state of the subject (cf. Suarez, De religione, LX, cap.IX, n.4), loses its character of lawfulness and absolves the subject from his duty to obey, "...nor are those who behave in such a way, to be accused of having failed in obedience, because if the will of leaders is repugnant to the will and the laws of God, these leaders exceed the measure of their power."14

We have already quoted St. Alphonsus that in the state of necessity there is imposed a "divine and natural law to which the human law of the Church cannot be opposed," and hence not even the command of the pope. The primacy of jurisdiction of the pope, therefore, is not in any way called into question by a violation of a jurisdictional law (as we have already seen), nor is it called into question by disobedience motivated by a state of necessity. In fact, the priest or bishop who, constrained by necessity, does not obey the pope is not thereby denying his own subordination to the pope outside the case of necessity, and so he is not refusing authority in its lawful exercise. Similarly, a wife is not denying the authority of her husband outside of the case of necessity, in which she has the duty to supply for him against his unreasonably opposed will.

St. Thomas says that whoever acts in a state of necessity "is not setting himself up as a judge of law" or of the legislator, nor is he even claiming that his point of view is better than that of authority, but he is merely "judging the particular case in which he sees that the words of the law [and/or the command of the legislator - Ed.] must not be observed," because their observance in this particular case would be gravely harmful. Hence, the state of necessity frees the subject from the accusation of arrogating to himself a power that does not belong to him (ST, I-II, Q.96, A.6, ad. 1,2). G. Gerson, for his part, reminds us that "contempt of the keys must be evaluated on the basis of legitimate power and the legitimate use of power."14

Hence, a priest who does not obey the pope forbidding him to absolve in a state of necessity, or a bishop who does not obey the pope forbidding him to consecrate bishops required by the grave spiritual necessity of many souls threatened in their faith and morals and without hope of help from their lawful pastors, cannot be accused of "contempt of the keys." This is so because the pope's action against divine law (natural and positive) is not making "lawful use" of his authority.

The primacy of the pope means blind submission "without examination of the object" exclusively "in matters of faith and morals," and when the pope expresses himself at that level on which his authority is infallible; otherwise, submission to the pope would be subject to the moral norms which regulate obedience. Hence, if the pope exceeds the "measure" of his power, the subjects who obey "God rather than man" are not to be accused of having failed in obedience (cf. Leo XIII, Diuturnum Illud, available from Angelus Press. Price: $0.75).

In the case we are considering, Archbishop Lefebvre did not question the right of the Vicar of Christ to exercise control, by virtue of his primacy, over the power of the episcopal order. He simply questioned whether the papal control over episcopal consecrations was able, in the present extraordinary circuмstances, to be respected without grave harm to many souls and without grave fault on his own part. These are circuмstances in which, as Pope John Paul II himself recognized, "ideas opposed to the revealed and constantly taught truth are being scattered by handfuls," when "true and genuine heresies are being spread in the realm of dogma and morals," and when Christians "in large part...lost, confused, perplexed, while being tempted by atheism, by agnosticism, by a vaguely moralistic humanism, by a sociological Christianity without defined dogmas and without objective morals,"11...are generally without hope of help from their lawful pastors.

Likewise, Archbishop Lefebvre did not question the Pope's power to command bishops in the interests of the Church and of souls, but he simply questioned whether in the present extraordinary circuмstances he could obey the Pope without grave harm to the Church and to souls, and without himself committing a grave sin, since he was under the grave duty of supplying, a duty imposed by charity and rooted in his episcopal state. And, in materially violating the disciplinary norm and the command he had received, he took care to affirm the dogmatic foundation of the primacy of the Holy Father and confine himself strictly within the limits of Catholic doctrine on the state of necessity. This was done in such a way that Cardinal Gagnon himself announced that "Archbishop Lefebvre has not in fact made the claim, 'I have the power to act in this realm.'"15

To maintain that by resisting the Pope's "No" Archbishop Lefebvre was denying the primacy of the Pope, one would have to claim that whoever resists a harmful command on the part of authority is denying authority itself, which is false.

These things having been said, we may now judge the position of those critics of Archbishop Lefebvre who would agree that the pope ought never to forbid an action necessary to save a man in peril of physical death, yet who simultaneously claim the pope has power to forbid an action necessary to help souls exposed to danger of eternal spiritual death. They defend his power [to prohibit an action] in order to safeguard the very primacy that is granted to the pope to save souls, not to damn them.

Gerson says that they are "weak-hearted" who think "that the pope is a god who has all power in heaven and on earth,"2 but the critics of Archbishop Lefebvre make the pope - or so it seems to us - more than a god, because not even God issues any command harmful to souls, nor does He insist on being obeyed when souls are being harmed. In reality, these unjust critics are making the primacy of Peter into the supreme law of the Church, which it is not, because that primacy has for its purpose the saving of souls. These critics are bringing papal primacy down to the level of a tyranny and the obedience due to the pope to the level of slavery, and they are making obedience the greatest of all virtues, which it is not, at least according to Catholic doctrine, for which obedience, even to the pope, is subordinate to the exercise of the theological virtues, charity being in the first place.16 St. Thomas, answering the objection that "sometimes to obey we must omit doing what is good," replies that "There is a good which a man is bound to do necessarily, such as loving God or other similar things. And that good may in no way be neglected out of obedience" (ST,II-II, Q.I04, A.3, ad.3) [emphasis added]. Among these "other similar things" there are in the first place the duties of one's state of life (especially if one is a Catholic bishop) and the love of neighbor, contained as a secondary object within the love of God. In fact, everything in the Church, with its hierarchical constitution, the primacy of Peter and the laws that control the power of Order, have charity as their final purpose, and if "necessity is not subject to law" (ST, cit.), it is because it is subject to the supreme law, which is charity. To the law of charity are subject even the Vicars of Christ who have, yes, the primacy of jurisdiction and hence the right to control all other jurisdiction within the Church, but:

...by the divine, indeed even natural, precept of charity, they are bound in this to provide sufficiently for the needs of the faithful (Suarez, De poenitentiae sacramento, disput. XXVI., Sect. IV, n.7).

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #71 on:** December 19, 2013, 12:20:09 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Sigh. You're running around in circles. The Fenton article, which I've cited to you in the past actually says this, if you'd read it in its entirety,

Quote
Actually the infallibility of the Roman Church is much more than a mere theological opinion. The proposition that "the Church of the city of Rome can fall into error" is one of the theses of Peter de Osma, formally condemned by Pope Sixtus IV as erroneous and as containing manifest heresy.[37]

"Sigh." I don't think your confidence and patronizing attitude are warranted. I did read the entire article and I never denied that Pope Sixtus IV taught the infallibility of the local Roman Church. But I think what that means in concrete terms needs to be examined because it is simply a fact that the local Roman Church is adhering to the Conciliar reforms which are heretical. Against a fact there is no argument. There might be one or more clerics who are keeping their opposition to those reforms secret but they are essentially invisible. Keep in mind that the infallibility of the Roman Church is a logical conclusion drawn from the infallibility of the Roman pontiff. And the Church doesn't teach that the pope is incapable of defecting from the Faith. So my point is that the Roman Church can defect (they could even be completely wiped out by a nuclear bomb). But it retains its infallibility. All that is needed is for the Church to elect another Catholic pope.

Quote from: Nishant

So if we were to apply your own standards, you just became a manifest heretic and are outside the Church. Does that seem in accordance with justice to you?

It's completely irrelevant. I don't hold any ecclesiastical offices. Neither have I said anything about being a sede vacantist. I merely hold that the Church has the power to remove a public heretic from office. I also deny that I ever knowingly rejected any teaching of the Church. Can you say the same for a man who studied in seminary for many years and still claims there is no Catholic God?

Quote from: Nishant

That's why we have to distinguish between material and formal heresy and have to ascertain whether the element of pertinacity is present. Which is often a complicated matter. This is especially so in the case of the Roman Pontiff, who is not subject to canon law.

True, but heretic and apostate Catholics are subject to canon law. Francis is a heretic therefore he is subject to canon law.

Quote from: Nishant

And the issue is even otherwise not remotely as you make it out, since many theologians have held God has a special providence in the case of the Pope, and the general rules don't apply to him.

Absurd! Go ahead Nishant. Be subject to a heretic. You put yourself outside the Church. If you knowingly subject yourself to a heretic, you are outside the Church. It is a heresy that Catholics can be subject to a heretic. That is clear from the teaching of the Fathers of the Church, the teachings of the popes, from canon law, always and everywhere.

Quote from: Suarez

“I affirm: if he were a heretic and incorrigible, the Pope would cease to be Pope just when a sentence was passed against him for his crime, by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church. This is the common opinion among the doctors ... In the first place, who ought to pronounce such a sentence? ... one must affirm that, as such, it pertains to all the Bishops of the Church, for, being the ordinary pastors and the pillars of the Church, one must consider that such a case concerns them. And since by divine law there is no greater reason to affirm that the matter is of more interest to these bishops than to those, and since by human law nothing has been established in the matter, one must necessarily sustain that the case refers to all, and even to the general council. That is the common opinion among the doctors”

Nice quote. But it is an opinion. It might be correct or it might not. There are plenty of other theologians who believe the pope loses his office the moment his heresy becomes public. Which makes sense if you think about it because otherwise the council would be judging a sitting pope which would be contrary to Church doctrine. You'd have to come up with an explanation for that. But regardless of when he loses his office we are not subject to him from the moment he makes his defection public.

Quote from: Nishant

Also, what you say about mission and episcopal consecration is directly opposed to traditional doctrine, to what Archbishop Lefebvre and the four Bishops consecrated by him said then and have always said.

It might be opposed to what Archbishop Lefebvre said but you will have to show me how it is opposed to traditional doctrine. Where has there ever been a valid and licit consecration which did not confer a canonical mission? Obviously, because heretics and schismatics are outside the Church they can not consecrate licitly so there is no canonical mission there. But it was supposed that ++Lefebvre was unjustly suspended and therefore he retained his canonical mission and his apostolicity. His consecrations were not only valid but licit as well. Bishops have been licitly consecrated during interegnums in the past so obviously a papal mandate from a living pope is not absolutely necessary. It is possible for a bishop to confer a canonical mission during an interegnum.

Quote from: Hermann

Succession may be material or formal. Material succession consists in the fact that there have never been lacking persons who have continuously been substituted for the Apostles ; formal succession consists in the fact that these substituted persons truly enjoy authority derived from the Apostles and received from him who is able to communicate it.

For someone to be made a successor of the Apostles and pastor of the Church, the power of order — which is always validly conferred by virtue of ordination — is not enough; the power of jurisdiction is also required, and this is conferred not by virtue of ordination but by virtue of a mission received from him to whom Christ has entrusted the supreme power over the universal Church.

Quote from: Nishant

Since only the Pope can bestow a mission on a Bishop, a Bishop must either be named or at least be confirmed by the Pope, otherwise he enjoys no power of jurisdiction, as Pope Pius XII also teaches. If a Bishop tried to do so without Papal mandate, that would be wrong. That was why Archbishop Lefebvre was careful to explain he was merely performing a consecration under epikeia but not bestowing the power of jurisdiction.

The confirmation doesn't have to come beforehand. It can come after the consecration.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #72 on:** December 19, 2013, 12:55:21 PM »

If you read the theological manuals it seems as though the canonical mission is assumed. Yes, there is material and formal succession but can you find a discussion of the possibility of a valid and licit consecration where no canonical mission is conferred? It is unheard of! Either the consecrating bishop is acting within the law or he isn't. You can't split the consecration into parts and say one part is licit and the other isn't. That's ridiculous. If there was no pope at the time of the consecration then the papal mandate is not necessary. The next pope can confirm it. The mistake Archbishop Lefebvre made was in thinking that there was a sitting pope who was denying him a papal mandate and therefore he had to come up with some way to explain the liceity of his actions. But he could be wrong about the explanation. I argue there was an implicit canonical mission. The next pope will have to confirm that.

The Church has jurisdiction. That jurisdiction is held by someone, somewhere. I don't agree with the sedeprivationist idea that somehow the heretics and schismatics retain jurisdiction. That doesn't strike me as anymore probable than that traditional bishops who were validly and licitly consecrated by bishops who themselves had a canonical mission, also received a canonical mission. I would agree, however, that a traditional priest who went to an Old Catholic for consecration would not receive a canonical mission because the Old Catholic bishop cannot confer something that he does not have. But in the case of ++Lefebvre he did have a canonical mission which although the heretics tried to say that he was deprived of it, he did in fact retain it. Even if he denied it, he could implicitly confer a canonical mission to the consecrand thus preserving apostolicity. He could not have done that without a papal mandate unless there was no pope. If there was no pope then he could do it. And the next pope would have to confirm it.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #73 on:** December 19, 2013, 01:07:21 PM »

http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/11Aug/aug8ftt.htm

Bullfighting is often considered a sport, a brutal one at that. But there is a nobility in the matadors who stand against the charging bull. These matadors then are the sedevacantists who bravely enter the ring risking their own reputations and the consequences of being rejected by man, but do it for God. The picadores and banderilleros are those who stay on the fringe and will distract the bull, but have no answer how to deal with the bull. These are the resist-and-recognize forces who have no expertise on how to kill the bull. The spectators are those who realize something is wrong but don't really want to get involved. They are fine with their comfortable position where they think they won't get harmed but little do they know that a much more dangerous beast with horns has already gored their minds and souls, causing them to grow more lukewarm, perfect foils for the heretical bull that is being thrown around the ring with only the matador and his toreros willing to stand for the truth and face down the heretics and apostate beast with the sword and cape of Catholic truth.

The "Sede" Position in Brief

In this third and final installment, I would like to cite John Lane's syllogism in thirteen points below in presenting a short, systematic outline of the history and doctrine supporting the "sede vacante" thesis.

1. Heresy is defined as a pertinacious doubt or denial of something required to be held with divine and catholic faith.

2. "Vatican II" and its "popes" have taught, adhered to, acted in accordance with, or failed to condemn a plethora of heresies, including religious liberty, universal salvation, the efficacy of non-Catholics sects for salvation, the blasphemy that Jews & Muslims worship the One True God, the evolution of dogma, etc. They have also destroyed the faith of tens of millions, and Karol Wojtyla ("John Paul II") describes this whole process as a "new Pentecost." In other words, he thinks it is good, and wants the Holy Ghost to take the blame ("credit").

3. There are various undoubtedly genuine prophecies relating to our time (or a time like ours) which predict the loss of faith at Rome, the use of the See by Antichrist, the mass apostasy, the disappearance of the perpetual sacrifice, etc.

4. It is the constant tradition of Holy Church that manifest (i.e. "public") heresy results in the radical incapacity of a man to hold the papacy.

5. History provides a number of examples of popes (or "popes") who were claimed to have fallen into at least material heresy, and the reaction of good Catholics each time was to threaten to withdraw from communion with them, and in the more outstanding cases work towards convoking an imperfect council for the "deposition" of the apparent heretic. The significant examples include Liberius, Honorius (after his death), Pascal II, John XXII, Alexander VI, Paul VI, and John Paul II.

6. There is no case in history where a "pope" has apparently been a manifest heretic and did not produce this reaction in some portion of the clergy and laity (the faithful).

7. These members of the faithful have included many saints.

8. The theological basis for this reaction has been established perfectly by many theologians and canonists, with the outstanding example being St. Robert Bellarmine, who has harmonised or criticised all of the opinions to produce the locus classicus on the subject. Given that his works have received the highest possible approbation by the Church - he has been named a Doctor (i.e. "Teacher") of the Universal Church - it is perfectly legitimate, nay praiseworthy in the highest degree, for Catholics to be taught by him in all matters of sacred doctrine.

9. Furthermore, there are only three or four theologians known to have held that a heretic could become or remain pope, and none of those are Doctors of the Church.

10. Furthermore, there is the bull of Pope Paul IV, cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio, which legislates that if a heretic is elected pope the election is completely null and void, and cannot be convalidated in any way. Once again, this bull proves the radical incompatibility of the papacy and the person of a heretic. If this was not the case, the faulty election could be repaired by acclamation or subsequent "convalidation" by the Sacred College.

11. It is contrary to right reason to insist that individual members of the faithful have no right to draw the concrete conclusion of a vacant see through heresy, prior to a declaration by Holy Church. This is proved by a reductio ad absurdum - if this were the case, then no action could be legitimately taken to remove such a "papal" heretic and then replace him. This is because a pope cannot be judged by any man, since judging belongs by divine right only to superiors, and the pope has no superior. Hence any proceedings which were founded on any basis other than the evident vacancy of the Holy See would be contrary to divine law and thus null and void. This is also proved by the authority of Wernz and Vidal, cited elsewhere on this web site, who maintain that those who dispute the legitimacy of a given pontiff are not to be counted schismatics.

12. This judgement of vacancy made by an individual is valid and sufficient in its sphere. It can be and should be a judgement of moral certainty, based on the relevant clear principles of theology and divine law, as embodied in the writings of the approved teachers of Holy Church, and also in her canon law. These principles include the nature of Holy Church as a visible society of those who, among other things, outwardly profess the true faith. Also relevant is the presumption under divine law (and hence canon law) of guilt for heresy (in the external forum) until and unless the contrary is proved. (This principle is no different in its fundamental nature from the presumption which provides perfectly sufficient support for the validity of all sacraments, including the Thuc and Lefebvre lines of Orders and all marriages). This principle is also clearly implied in St. Robert Bellarmine's assessment of the case of Liberius, in which he states that Liberius was actually innocent and yet rightly presumed guilty. It is also clearly enunciated in Leo XIII's Apostolicae Curae, in which the Holy Father laid down that only God judges what remains internal, while men judge externals. (Emphasis mine throughout - JG)

13. Given the above, it is the right and responsibility of all of the faithful, as it lies within their competence, to form a view on this question, and it is the additional responsibility of the clergy to act upon the conclusion reached.

Perhaps it may now be clear why it is an absolute outrage that so-called "sedevacantists" are treated as schismatics and denounced as enemies of Holy Church. Sede Position in Brief

Again, turning to John Lane's findings, let us examine what St. Robert Bellarmine points out.

"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: 'He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.'

According to what St. Cyprian affirms in this passage, even had Novatian been the true and legitimate Pope, he would have automatically fallen from the pontificate, if he separated himself from the Church.

"This is the opinion of great recent doctors, as John Driedo (lib. 4 de Script. et dogmat. Eccles., cap. 2, par. 2, sent. 2), who teaches that only they separate themselves from the Church who are expelled, like the excommunicated, and those who depart by themselves from her or oppose her, as heretics and schismatics. And in his seventh affirmation, he maintains that in those who turn away from the Church, there remains absolutely no spiritual power over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano says the same (lib. 4 de loc., cap. 2), teaching that heretics are neither parts nor members of the Church, and that it cannot even be conceived that anyone could be head and Pope, without being member and part (cap. ult. ad argument. 12). And he teaches in the same place, in plain words, that occult [private or secret - JG] heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members, and that therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope. This is also the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book I De Ecclesia.

"The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics [i.e. who are not heretics] are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external [VISIBLE - JG] union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union [can be saved despite what the Feeneyites teach - JG], not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved."

Comments by Jim Larrabee: As to the case of Liberius, which Bellarmine treats in book IV, chapter IX at considerable length, he is there concerned not to prove that Liberius was not deposed, and lawfully deposed (both of which he fully admits), but that the Liberius case does not argue against infallibility, nor was Liberius personally a heretic. This involves various distinctions which people now are failing to make, but are evident to any theologian. Perhaps I could quote this at length in future, but for now, let it be said that, while Liberius resisted heresy both before and after the period of his lapse and deposition (and that is what the quote from a later Pope undoubtedly refers to), he failed to do so for a given time. During this time the Roman clergy "deposed" him, i.e. they considered the papacy to be vacant, and accepted St. Felix as Pope.

For example (Bellarmine): "In addition, unless we are to admit that Liberius defected for a time from constancy in defending the Faith, we are compelled to exclude Felix II, who held the pontificate while Liberius was alive, from the number of the Popes: but the Catholic Church venerates this very Felix as Pope and martyr. However this may be, Liberius neither taught heresy, nor was a heretic, but only sinned by external act [emphasis in original Latin], as did St. Marcellinus, and unless I am mistaken, sinned less than St. Marcellinus." (lib. IV, c. 9, no. 5)

Further, after explaining that Felix was for a time an antipope, he continues (no. 15): "Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic. (Emphasis mine throughout) Bellarmine

If the conciliar Church is the Catholic Church then the gates of Hell could prevail and the Catholic Church could be destroyed since it would, if not already, no longer have a valid Mass as its main form of worship (even the "extraordinary form", modernized 1961/2 version of the true Mass is invalid when offered by the invalid clergy that composes over 99% of their clergy) or Sacraments or valid Priests or Bishops or Canon Law or Truth or Oneness or Holiness or Apostolicity. If any Mark of the Church is destroyed that whole Church is destroyed. Three out of the four Marks of the Conciliar Church have gone kaput as the only remaining Mark, which is its universality in this world so obviously ruled by Satan. Yes, we must take the bull by the horns and end the conciliar heresy for it is no game of sport when it comes to souls.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #74 on:** December 19, 2013, 01:09:07 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

If you read the theological manuals it seems as though the canonical mission is assumed. Yes, there is material and formal succession but can you find a discussion of the possibility of a valid and licit consecration where no canonical mission is conferred? It is unheard of! Either the consecrating bishop is acting within the law or he isn't. You can't split the consecration into parts and say one part is licit and the other isn't. That's ridiculous. If there was no pope at the time of the consecration then the papal mandate is not necessary. The next pope can confirm it. The mistake Archbishop Lefebvre made was in thinking that there was a sitting pope who was denying him a papal mandate and therefore he had to come up with some way to explain the liceity of his actions. But he could be wrong about the explanation. I argue there was an implicit canonical mission. The next pope will have to confirm that.

The Church has jurisdiction. That jurisdiction is held by someone, somewhere. I don't agree with the sedeprivationist idea that somehow the heretics and schismatics retain jurisdiction. That doesn't strike me as anymore probable than that traditional bishops who were validly and licitly consecrated by bishops who themselves had a canonical mission, also received a canonical mission. I would agree, however, that a traditional priest who went to an Old Catholic for consecration would not receive a canonical mission because the Old Catholic bishop cannot confer something that he does not have. But in the case of ++Lefebvre he did have a canonical mission which although the heretics tried to say that he was deprived of it, he did in fact retain it. Even if he denied it, he could implicitly confer a canonical mission to the consecrand thus preserving apostolicity. He could not have done that without a papal mandate unless there was no pope. If there was no pope then he could do it. And the next pope would have to confirm it.

Nice post! :applause: