Author Topic: A broader conversation on sedevacantism and the SSPX (Read 16158 times)

Machabees · « **Reply #135 on:** March 15, 2013, 04:03:59 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Machabees wrote:
(Your words in brackets)
Quote
The personal holiness of lack of holiness of the Pope does not bear on this. The Pope could be living in the state of sin, even public mortal sin, but his office would protect him from promulgating universal laws that are evil, that lead to impiety or sin. [No. Look at Church history; of Pope Honduras, other Popes, Bishops, Priests in the Catholic Church who had erred. In the Old Testament with the Pharisees, they told the people not to follow the Divine Lord, the Truth, and His Teachings.] The Church must always be holy, her sacramental rites, ceremonies, and official prayers can only lead us to holiness and towards our salvation. The Church cannot give us stones rather than bread.

I still stand by my assertion that a pope never gave the universal Church an evil law. This is impossible for a pope to do. If I am wrong on this, then please cite the law. It is impossible for the Church to give evil universal laws, a holy Church cannot give evil.

Regarding Pope Honorius, have you ever read this, it may be an eye opener for you, as it dispels common calumnies against him:
http://books.google.com/books?id=oJoNAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=Supposed+Fall+Honorius+Condemnation&source=bl&ots=9wDXALs6Yt&sig=p_MPCVnrMKh_MIGhcIq37OXRDMI&hl=en&ei=lbd-Ttz0D6fY0QGw2r3dDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Supposed%20Fall%20Honorius%20Condemnation&f=false

I have not said that the "Church" gives evil universal laws. I said that evil men, prelates, and churchmen, of themselves, can give bad laws, council, advice, morals, error, sin, etc. That was the context of my reply to you.

Machabees · « **Reply #136 on:** March 15, 2013, 04:20:51 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Machabees wrote:
Quote

Sedevacantists, in likeness though a different application, do not believe in the correct understanding of the Church's "Divine constitution" (like you had written above); so they believe in something else and eventually fall away. Like in many cases into different kinds and tenets of sedevacantism -like Gerry Mattitics...and others. The road is difficult and requires a strong Faith in God's Divine attributes of His Church -which cannot err- only men can."]

Machabess,

I disagree with this conclusion. The reason why sedevacantism is not united is due to the lack of unity that comes through the Pope and the bishops in union with him. When this breaks down, unity suffers. This is why Our Lord established the Church with the office of St. Peter, to unite the Church in Faith and charity. The Pope is the center of the unity of the Church, hence the axiom, "where Peter is, there is the Church."

It is inevitable that during a period of long term sedevacante, with a heretical anti-pope deceiving the flock of Christ, and no members of the hierarchy leading the remaining Catholics, that all order has broken down and will keep breaking down. It is a fact that heresy, error, and schisms are everywhere.

But, with respect, it is a fantasy to only look at the sedevacantists regarding the breakdown. [I did not say nor imply that.] There is a constant breakdown in unity among those who adhere to the anti-pope. Some adhere to the anti-pope more than others, and that leads to constant divisions. The Society of St. Pius X has suffered divisions and still does to this day.

This is natural and it is a living proof that the Papacy is essential to the Church. We are witnessing the necessity of this doctrine before our very eyes.

When you say, "only men can (err)," that is true, but, the Church cannot err on matters of Faith and moral. She cannot teach heresy to the universal Church as happened at Vatican II. She cannot give evil laws to the universal Church. She is spotless and Holy. Evil cannot come from the Catholic Church. [Yes, I agree. In this discussion Ambrose, you seem to think that what these Popes teach, is apart of the Church. No. That is why there is the Church's teaching on Fallibility and Infallibility. Popes, as men, can err all by themselves. It is very important to understand the difference that separates them.]

Regarding Gerry Matatics, does he actually disagree on any matter of Faith and morals? From what I see he only disagrees on the judgment of whether epikeia can be used in our present circuмstance regarding the justification of the traditional clergy, i.e. bishops without a mission from the Pope, and priests not sent by bishops with a mission.

While I disagree with him on this, he is not bound to the judgment on epikeia that we have formed. He should at least be consistent though, and explain how he can publicly teach and write on matters of Faith relying on the principle of epikeia himself. To my knowledge, he has never done this.

Machabees · « **Reply #137 on:** March 15, 2013, 05:03:10 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Machabees
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Machabees
What is also very important to understand in this crisis, is that Vatican II was a "Pastoral" council.

Which means:

- Everything "pastoral" that is in it, you are not bound to follow.
- Anything that is ambiguous, gets through out the window. The Church is Holy and clear. She does not speak with "two tongues"; only sinful man does. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, that if a "law is unjust, it is not a law at all, and needs not be followed.
- Anything that comes out later as a "dogmatic" interpretation of a "pastoral" nature is false and also not to be followed (Lumen Gentium, Religious Liberty, Ecuмenism, Collegiality, etc...).

Likewise, anything that a conciliar Bishop, Priest, or Pope wants to "promote" in this "false pastoral doctrine", is not obliged to follow, like Aaron in the Old Testament when he erred; however, it does not mean that they have no authority from God in the position that they were ordained in.

Vatican II by itself -is self condemned- and is waiting for God's Providence to manifest the "mysterious good" that will come out of that evil.

Until then, we need to have Faith in God, do our duties of state faithfully, and be patient for God's plan to work the way He is allowing it to happen.

There was an excellent article published by John Daly several years ago which studied the question about whether Vatican II taught in the manner in which the Church teaches infallibly. I would urge you to read the article, and then if you still believe that Vatican II did not teach in the manner in which the Church teaches, we could discuss it further. http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=8267&sid=c4d1062bd473677b487418e2caab7e3b#p8267

Now, I am not arguing that Vatican II is the infallible teaching of the Church, but I am arguing that the man who approved it teaching could not have been a Pope.

I agree that Vatican II is self condemned. It is not part of the teaching of the Church. It could not be. The theology of Vatican II is divorced from the deposit of Faith. From the moment it was promulgated, December 7th 1965, new doctrine was taught not found and in conflict with the Sacred Deposit.

It is impossible that Vatican II came from the Church, and from that it is impossible that the "pope" who imposed it on the Church was truly a pope.

Ambrose?

Though I agree, however, you did say in two other posts:

Quote
"The Pope is the center of unity of the Church, his teachings are the rule of faith, and we are bound to believe him, even in his non-infallible teaching. We are bound to adhere to the laws he gives to the universal Church, also called Sacred laws, or Sacred Canons."

Quote
The Pope being the Supreme Teacher of all. When the Pope teaches the universal Church on matters of Faith and morals, all must believe what he says, even when he is teaching in a non-infallible manner.

Quote
Whenever the Pope teaches the universal Church all must believe what he teaches. They are bound the teaching, but the level of assent may differ. The Pope's non-infallible teaching to the universal Church binds Catholics under pain of sin to believe him and is always safe although it is not infallible.

Quote
The personal holiness of lack of holiness of the Pope does not bear on this. The Pope could be living in the state of sin, even public mortal sin, but his office would protect him from promulgating universal laws that are evil, that lead to impiety or sin. The Church must always be holy, her sacramental rites, ceremonies, and official prayers can only lead us to holiness and towards our salvation. The Church cannot give us stones rather than bread.

Machabees,

There is no such thing as "pastoral doctrine." When the Pope teaches on matters of the Faith and morals we are bound to what he teaches. I would ask you to explain "pastoral doctrine" using pre-Vatican II theology. It didn't exist and is a novelty used to explain away Vatican II.

Vatican II taught in the manner that the Church teaches. John Daly explains the point in great and accurate detail. If you have a chance to read this article, it would greatly advance discussion on this point. If you disagree with what he says, at least we could see the nature of our disagreement. http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=8267&sid=c4d1062bd473677b487418e2caab7e3b#p8267

In my above post, I spoke of the Pastoral council -Vatican II's own words. Vatican II was in nature a Pastoral council, NOT a Doctrinal council, like Vatican I.

"Pastoral Doctrine". Those words are a well used phrase in reference to the ambiguity of Vatican II from their "pastoral" teachings. In this crisis of the Church, Post-Vatican II ever so tries to take their own declared Pastoral council and "spin" it into a "Doctrinal" dogma, as they see fit. For which they call it themselves -a "Pastoral doctrine".

Other than the usage of the modern day phrase of "Pastoral doctrine", to be more clear on the Pope, and his own pastoral advice, that when you go to confession to a priest, he gives you pastoral advise, you are not "bound" to follow it (catechism). Also, if you go to confession to a Bishop, or the Pope, they give you pastoral advice, you are not "bound" to follow it.

When the Pope speaks, of himself, such examples as his Angelus addresses, or writing a book, or an article in the Vatican newspaper, or an interview, they are pastoral, you are not "bound" to follow it.

If the Pope writes something on Morals, or Church teaching, it would be doctrinal. If it is in line with what the Church has always taught, we are bound to follow it. If it is NOT in line with what the Church has always taught, like Vatican II, we are NOT bound to follow it -Hence, the crisis.

God bless.

Machabees · « **Reply #138 on:** March 15, 2013, 05:09:11 PM »

Ambrose said,

Quote

Vatican II taught in the manner that the Church teaches.

Can you explain this please?

In Vatican II's Pastoral council, they taught a lot of heresies, i.e. Religious Liberty, Ecuмenism, and Collegiality to name a few.

Machabees · « **Reply #139 on:** March 15, 2013, 05:18:08 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Machabees wrote:
Quote
[I understand. What you have not admitted to is that Archbishop Lefebvre has NOT taken that position to the end; sedevacantist, on their own, have.]

I agree with you, and I do not dispute that. But, what I am saying is this: Archbishop Lefebvre taught the same principles that I am stating here.

Yes, I know, and you do well.

What I am saying is that Archbishop Lefebvre did teach the "principles", but he did not take it to the conclusion. Sedevacantist took the principles, then on their own, have taken it to in its own conclusion.

Machabees · « **Reply #140 on:** March 15, 2013, 06:46:22 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Machabees wrote:
(your words in brackets)
Quote
When the bishops were consecrated in 1988, all of those present made the judgment that they must go against the express will of the "pope," for the common good of the Church. As sedevacantists, we are not the only ones making judgments on our own, without the benefit of authority. In every case, the Society has acted to preserve the Faith by resisting the anti-popes, but they have done this in the absence of authority relying on their own judgment of what to do and when to resist. [No. It is on the Authority of the Church in what the Church has always done. Archbishop Lefebvre had explained very well in his sermon of the 1988 consecrations.]

But, a judgment was still made that they were doing "what the Church has always done." At no time in the history of the Church has a bishop had to consecrate bishops to preserve the Faith and the apostolic succession from the Pope. [I do not remember, but didn't St. Athanasius do this?]

When a Catholic during the crisis resists the man they call pope, they are relying on their judgment that they must resist, how far the must resist, and exactly what they must resist. This is a fact. They are not relying on any living authority to tell them anything, they are relying on themselves.

Now, I know you are going to say, they are relying on the previous Popes, Councils, Canon Law, Doctors and theologians. If you say that then we agree, we as Catholics must preserve the same Faith and reject abominations and evil and impious laws and sacramental rites. But, that is all the sedevacantists are doing, we are rejecting this evil, and we are applying pre-Vatican II theology and law to a publicly heretical "pope."

We both agree that we must reject the heresies of Vatican II, the area that we are not agreeing on is that you do not seem willing to concede that we can reject a papal claim of a public heretic. Archbishop Lefebvre taught that we could, the Code teaches it, pre-Vatican II theology teaches it, but I cannot convince you of it.

Ambrose, as I have mentioned before, I do appreciate this overall discussion. As this helps us grow, and is good for our own reflection, study, and love of God, it is hoped that as we learn, others will also come to learn from these diverse topics that we have touched on. In my experience, not too many people will discuss these great, albeit profound and deep, areas of our Faith.

I actually do recognize that the past 3-Popes spoke with open heresy; however, the difference is the Type of Heresy in a conclusion of Material or Formal, and his membership in the Church in conclusion of Spiritual or Governance).

This new Pope, Pope Francis, I do not know anything of him; and I believe it is prudent, in God's providence for His Church, He is the Head, and for the common good, that this new Pope be accepted as the Vicar of Christ in his Authority, and is a Catholic with full membership, until it is manifested by God that he is not the Pope.

In reflection over our conversation, I think there are two main areas that still need to be brought out:

- Where does the teachings of a Pope(s) have it's place: Fallible or Infallible.
I'm sorry I do not have a link for this important topic. I will try and look for one over the next week.

- Spiritual Membership and Membership of Governance.
This is also an important topic; and I think is really the center of our overall discussion. RJS has also brought this out in a very good Ecclesiastical and Canonical way. I cannot re-post it here, it will make this post too long. However, his contents are still valid.

For myself, I have tried to bring this Membership of Governance out in many of my other posts in both of a practical way and in a historical way with Sacred Scripture. What is important in all of this interpretation of Canon Law, Ecclesiastical Law, or the Church Fathers, is the real question -how does God applies this- not us. For us, these are tools to discern. Sacred Scripture and Tradition is the true source of God showing us how He applies His Church teachings.

The Old Testament, as well as the New Testament, is full of examples on how the leaders, the Authority of those different times, have sinned and erred seriously in the Truth and the Faith of God's teachings; yes, they have lost the Spiritual membership but not the Membership of Governance; yet, God still did not remove the majority of them...at all. When He did remove some of them, when the time was right in the situation He had prepared for, God manifested the removal in a very clear, public, unmistakeable manner that all of the people and world could see; with marvel, fear, and love of God. God's people then went away from their idolatries, and the people were restored back to the Faith of God...such is His ways.

So how does it apply for today? We know God does not change, nor does His ways change. So we have to have the Faith that He is fully in charge, under control, as He is the Head of His Church.

When time is "ripe", He will again manifest His will for all to see. Scripture shows many times over that the people turned away from their sins, and was restored back to God's Faith. That is what is mentioned in Fatima in our times, the many other apparitions, the Church Fathers, and biblical apocalypse.

Which ever age of the Church suffering we are in now, in likeness of Her Crucified Lord, is God's plan. Utopia? No. That is the Faith, which is above our reason, and we are to have Trust and confidence in.

God bless.

Machabees · « **Reply #141 on:** March 18, 2013, 08:57:22 PM »

Ambrose,

I recently discovered this article on Sedevacantism showing some of its arguments with it's inherent dangers and consequences. Certainly relevant to our discussions: "Is the Pope Pope; a Formal heretic?"

Here is the article:

http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q15_sedevacantists.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What should we think of sedevacantists?

NB: Some of the examples are in reference to the late Pope John Paul II

In the face of the scandal of a pope who can sign Dignitatis Humanae, radically change the liturgy of the Mass, codify a new ecclesiology, or make himself the protagonist for an aberrant ecuмenism, etc., some have concluded that the last popes cannot have been true popes, or else that they have lost the pontificate because of such scandals. They refer to the discussions of the great counter-Reformation theologians on the loss of the pontificate (through abdication, insanity, heresy, etc.) and argue thus:

a.   he who is not a member of the Church can’t be its head.
b.   but a heretic is not a member of the Church,
c.   now, Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI are heretics,
d.   therefore, they are neither members nor head of the Church,
e.   and so all their acts are to be completely ignored.
But then again, the argument continues, the same scandals are true of all the world’s diocesan bishops, who are also consequently non-members without authority; and the Catholic Church must be identified only with those who have not compromised the Faith and who refuse communion with these “popes” or “bishops.” A minority of these will elect their own “pope” (e.g. the communities at Palmar de Troya, Spain, or Saint Jovite, Canada).

The argument’s strength is in the real scandal of the Conciliar authorities’ impetus given to the Church’s “new direction”; its weakness is in not being able to prove that any of these authorities are formal heretics.
•   You are a “material” heretic without knowing it if you objectively contradict what God has said but through no fault of your own;
•   you are a “formal” heretic if you do pertinaciously contradict what God has said, i.e., knowing that you’re denying what God has said and wanting to do this anyway.
Now, the ordinary way for the Church to ascertain pertinacity and enforce the consequences of one’s heresy by either excommunication and/or loss of office, is through authoritative monitions* to the delinquent which he spurns (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 2314, §1). But nobody can authoritatively admonish the pope (canon 1556), and the bishops can only be admonished by their superior, the pope (canon 1557), who has not done so.
________________________________________
*To have canonical force, they must come from one's superior (cf., canon 2233). The point is not only the crime but also its imputability must be notorious (canon 2195; 2197).
________________________________________
Therefore, pertinacity, and so formal heresy, cannot be proven.

But could pertinacity not be presumed from the insistence of these popes on the new ways, and this in the face of all tradition and its present-day witnesses? Perhaps; but not socially i.e., as regards loss of office, etc., which must not be presumed but proven, otherwise societies would collapse.
The argument does not prove its point, and becomes less probable when you consider that there are other explanations for the “material heretic” pope [see section a below], and it becomes quite improbable when you consider its dangers or consequences [c].
a.   The liberal mind-set of a Pope Paul VI or a Pope John Paul II can be an explanation of their wanting to be Catholics and their simultaneous betrayal in practice of Catholicism. They accept contradictions; with a subjective and evolutive mentality, this is to be expected.* But such a frame of mind can be convinced of heresy only by way of authority....
________________________________________
*A little example: "At the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church committed herself irrevocably to following the path of the ecuмenical venture, thus heeding the Spirit of the Lord, who teaches people to interpret carefully the 'signs of the times'" (Ut Unum Sint, §3). If it is because of the "signs of the times" that the Conciliar Church has launched herself into ecuмenism, how are we to know that the venture will be irrevocable? What does a Pope John Paul II mean by such absolute terms?
________________________________________
b.   The Church is indefectible (principle 3) not only in her faith and means of sanctification, but also in her monarchical constitution (principle 4), comprising governing power i.e., jurisdiction, hence Vatican I’s profession that Peter will have perpetual successors.
Now, we can understand a break in the line of popes from the death of one to the election of the next, and that it may drag on.
But is indefectibility preserved if there is no pope since 1962 or if there is no one with ordinary jurisdiction whom the sedevacantists can point out as such?
The Church is visible (principle 3) and not just a society composed of those who are joined by interior bonds (state of grace, same faith,...). A society is recognized and maintained as such by its authority (its efficient cause).

c.   If the Church has not had a pope since the days of Vatican II, then there are no more cardinals legitimately created. But then how is the Church to get a pope again, as the current discipline grants only to cardinals the power to elect a pope?
The Church could have ordained that non-Cardinal “electors of the pope” be capable of doing it, but we cannot go by any other way than the current discipline which ordains that cardinals elect him.

A few sedevacantists hold that he has been or will be directly designated by private revelation from heaven

There are spiritual consequences of sedevacantism:
•   sedevacantism is a theological opinion, and not a certitude. To treat it as a certitude leads to condemning with temerity traditional Catholics who disagree;
•   and invariably it leads to one’s recognizing no spiritual superiors on earth. Each becomes, in practice, his own little “pope,” the rule of faith and orthodoxy, the judge of the validity of sacraments.*
________________________________________
*Consider the arguments from "Bishop" Vezelis, the Schuckardt movement, etc.: It is said that Cardinal Lienart, who ordained Archbishop Lefebvre a priest and consecrated him a bishop, was Freemason, and so all his ordinations were invalid; and so we must consider invalid all the sacraments of those he ordained, and of those they ordained...

In fact, whereas that Lienart was a Freemason is only an unproven allegation of one writer; and Church teaching is that we must accept as valid his sacraments anyway, if he used the correct external rite (unless he revealed a contrary internal intention, which he did not).

Moreover, Archbishop Lefebvre was consecrated by three bishops in 1947, which sacrament was surely therefore valid. Cf. On rumors and their source for more information on this matter.
________________________________________
This being so, we ought not to associate with, or, receive the sacraments from them, most especially if they set up sedevacantism as a certitude which all have to accept.
________________________________________
More on this topic:
A Little Catechism on Sedevacantism

Is Sedevacantism Catholic?

Concerning a Sedevancantist Thesis

Pray much for the Holy Father

Why we should pray for the pope and his intentions   Validity is not enough

The vocation and suitability of candidates for holy orders. Explains why the issue of validity is not the only concern with "independent ordinations" 7-30-2010

The Validity of the New Rite of Episcopal Consecrations
The English-language article from Angelus Press originally printed in the Avrille Dominicans French quarterly, Sel de la Ter

Machabees · « **Reply #142 on:** March 18, 2013, 09:17:19 PM »

Ambrose,

Here is another answer to your responses: "A Little Catechism On Sedevacantism".

http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/sedevacantism/little_catechism_on_sedevacantism.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------

A Little Catechism On Sedevacantism

What is sedevacantism?
Sedevacantism is the theory of those who think that the most recent popes, the popes of the Second Vatican Council, have not really been popes. Consequently, the See of Peter is not occupied. This is expressed in Latin by the formula sede vacante.

Where does this theory come from?
This theory has been conceived in reaction to the very grave crisis which the Church has been undergoing since the Council, a crisis that Archbishop Lefebvre justly called "the third world war." The main cause of the crisis has been the dereliction of the Roman Pontiffs, who teach or allow to be propagated serious errors on the subjects of ecuмenism, religious liberty, collegiality, etc.

The sedevacantists think that real popes could not be responsible for such a crisis, and consequently they consider them not to be "real" popes.

Do the sedevacantists agree amongst themselves?
No, far from it. There are many different positions. Some think that, since the Chair of Peter is vacant, someone should occupy it, and so they have elected a "pope." Such is the case of the sect of Palmar in Spain, for example. Among those who do not go so far, there are different schools. Some think that the current pope is an anti-pope, others that he is only partly pope, a pope materialiter but not formaliter.

Some sedevacantists consider their position as a "likely opinion," and consent to receive the sacraments from non-sedevacantist priests, while others, called "ultra" by the Fr. Coache,[1] make it a matter of faith, and refuse to assist at Masses where the priest prays for the pope. But what is common to all the sedevacantists is that they think that the pope should not be prayed for in public.

What is meant by being pope materialiter?
The main difficulty of sedevacantism is to explain how the Church can continue to exist in a visible manner (for she has received from the Lord the promise that she will endure until the end of the world) while being deprived of her head. The partisans of the so-called "Cassiciacuм Thesis"[2] have come up with a very subtle solution: the current pope was validly designated as pope, but he did not receive the papal authority because there was an interior obstacle (heresy). So, according to the theory, he is able to act in some ways for the good of the Church, such as, for instance, appointing cardinals (who are cardinals materialiter), but he is not really pope.

What do you think of this solution?
For one thing, this solution is not based on Tradition. Theologians (Cajetan, St. Robert Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas, etc.) who have examined the possibility of a heretical pope, but no one prior to the Council every devised such a theory. Also, it does not resolve the main difficulty of sedevacantism, namely, how the Church can continue to be visible, for, if the pope, the cardinals, the bishops, etc., are deprived of their "form," then no visible Church hierarchy is left. Moreover, this theory has some serious philosophical defects because it supposes that a head can be head materialiter, that is, without authority.

What arguments do the sedevacantists adduce to prove their theories?
They use a theological argument and a canonical one. The theological argument consists of positing that a heretic cannot be head of the Church, but John Paul II is a heretic, therefore...

The legal argument consists of pointing out that the laws of the Church invalidate the election of a heretic; but Cardinal Wojtyla was a heretic at the time of his election, therefore...

But isn’t it true that a pope who becomes a heretic loses the pontificate?
St. Robert Bellarmine says that a pope who would formally and manifestly become a heretic would lose the pontificate. For that to apply to John Paul II, he would have to be a formal heretic, deliberately refusing the Church’s magisterium; and this formal heresy would have to be open and manifest. But if John Paul II often enough makes heretical affirmations or statements that lead to heresy, it cannot easily be shown that he is aware of rejecting any dogma of the Church. And as long as there is no sure proof, then it is more prudent to refrain from judging. This was Archbishop Lefebvre’s line of conduct.

If a Catholic were convinced that John Paul II is a formal, manifest heretic, should he then conclude that he is no longer pope?
No, he should not, for according to the "common" opinion (Suarez), or even the "more common" opinion (Billuart), theologians think that even an heretical pope can continue to exercise the papacy. For him to lose his jurisdiction, the Catholic bishops (the only judges in matters of faith besides the pope, by Divine will) would have to make a declaration denouncing the pope’s heresy.

According to the more common opinion, the Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church.[3]

Now, in so serious a matter, it is not prudent to go against the common opinion.

But how can a heretic, who is no longer a member of the Church, be its leader or head?
The Dominican Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that an heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. For, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head.

The reason is that, whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul, a moral head, as is the Roman Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.

In short, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, but he is head of the visible Church by the jurisdiction and authority which he received, and these can co-exist with his own heresy.

How does their canonical argument fare?
The sedevacantists base their position on the apostolic constitution cuм ex Apostolatus of Pope Paul IV (1555-1559). But some good studies have shown that this constitution lost its legal force when the 1917 Code of Canon Law was promulgated. See, for example, the article of Fr. Albert, O.P., in Sel de la terre, Summer 2000, pp.67-78. What remains in effect from this constitution is its dogmatic teaching. And, consequently, it cannot be made to say more than the theological argument already examined.

Don’t the sedevacantists claim to find a confirmation of their theory in the errors of Vatican Council II and the harmful liturgical and canonical laws of the Conciliar Church?
Indeed, the sedevacantists think, in general, that the teaching of the Council should have been covered by the infallibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium, and consequently should not contain any errors. But, since there are errors, for example, on religious liberty, they conclude that Paul VI had ceased to be pope at that moment.

Really, if one accepted this argument, then it would be necessary to say that the whole Catholic Church disappeared then, too, and that "the gates of hell had prevailed" against her. For the teaching of the ordinary, universal magisterium is that of the bishops, of the whole Church teaching.

It is simpler to think that the teaching of the Council and of the Conciliar Church is not covered by the infallibility of the ordinary, universal magisterium for the reasons explained in the article of Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P., on the authority of the Council that appeared in Sel de la terre, "L’autorite du Concile," pp.32-63.

One of the arguments set forth there consists in showing that the Council does not present its teaching as "necessary for salvation" (which is logical, since those who profess this believe that it is possible to be saved without the Catholic Faith). Since this teaching is not authoritatively imposed, it is not covered by the guarantee of infallibility. The same thing can be said about the liturgical laws (the New Mass) and the canonical laws (the 1983 Code of Canon Law) promulgated by the most recent popes: they are not covered by infallibility, although normally they would be.

Aren’t the sedevacantists right, though, in refusing to name the pope at Mass in order to show that they are not in communion with ("una cuм") a heretic (at least materially) and his heresies?
The expression "una cuм" in the Canon of the Mass does not mean that one affirms that he is "in communion" with the erroneous ideas of the pope, but rather that one wants to pray for the Church "and for" the pope, her visible head.

In order to be sure of this interpretation, in addition to reading the erudite studies that have been made on this point, it is enough to read the rubric of the missal for the occasion of a bishop celebrating Mass. In this case, the bishop must pray for the Church "una cuм ...me indigno famulo tuo," which does not mean that he prays "in communion with...myself, your unworthy servant" (which does not make sense!), but that he prays "and for ...myself, your unworthy servant."

But doesn’t St. Thomas Aquinas say that in the Canon one should not pray for heretics?
St. Thomas Aquinas does not say that one should not pray for heretics (Summa Theologica, III, Q. 79, A. 7, ad 2), but merely observes that, in the prayers of the Canon of the Mass, one prays for those whose faith and devotion are known to the Lord (quorum tibi fides cognita est et nota devotio). For, he says, so that this sacrifice obtain its effect (effectum habet) those for whom one prays must be "united to the passion of Christ by faith and charity." He does not say that praying for heretics is forbidden. He only means that this prayer will not have the same efficacy as one for a Catholic, and is not provided for in the Canon.

All that can be concluded from this affirmation of St. Thomas is that, if the pope is a heretic (which remains to be proven), then the prayer for him will not have the foreseen effect, "non habet effectum."

In conclusion, what should we think of sedevacantism?
Sedevacantism is a theory that has not been proven speculatively, and that it is imprudent to hold practically (an imprudence that can have very serious consequences). That is why Archbishop Lefebvre never adopted this position, and even forbade the priests of the Society of St. Pius X to profess it. We should have confidence in his prudence and theological sense.
Fr. Munoz[4] points out that no saint in the Church’s history was ever a sedevacantist, while several openly and forcefully resisted a pope’s errors. Let us do likewise. (Translated from Sel de la terre, Spring 2001.)

________________________________________

Footnotes:
1 Fr. Coache (1920-1994), Doctor of Canon Law, was the pastor of the parish of Montjavoult until 1973. He was one of the pioneers of the Catholic resistance against the Conciliar revolution. His parish bulletin evolved into The Combat for the Faith, which was widely distributed, and which he edited until his death. He organized with Msgr. Ducaud-Bourget the epic taking of St. Nicholas du Chardonnet in Paris, France, in February 1977.

2 "Cassiciacuм" is the name of the place to which St. Augustine withdrew with some friends after his baptism, and where he studied and deepened his faith. In the late 1970’s, Fr. Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., together with a group of like-minded priests, founded a review called Les Cahiers de Cassiciacuм to defend the sedevacantist position. The "Cassiciacuм Thesis" is the name given to the theory that the pope is pope materialiter but not formaliter.

3 Billuart, De Fide, Diss. V, A. III, No. 3, obj. 2.

4 Of the diocese of Barcelona, Spain. He was ordained in 1952, and was vicar of a parish in Barcelona. With women active in the Catholic Action movement, he founded a contemplative religious community called the Oasis, near Barcelona. The special mission of this community is to pray for priests. Becoming acquainted with Archbishop Lefebvre in the early 1970’s, he chose to remain faithful to the traditional Mass. Archbishop Lefebvre had a deep affection for the community of the Oasis, whose apostolate he judged to be very necessary for the Church today, and would go there to visit. In October 2000, Fr. Munoz founded a second Oasis in the south of France.

Machabees · « **Reply #143 on:** March 18, 2013, 10:22:37 PM »

Following these last two posts in describing different thoughts of Sedevacantism with some of there dangers and consequences, here also is an article from Stephen Heiner, entitled: "The serenity of sedevacantism: reflections on the 2013 "conclave"".

I think Mr. Heiner is a very polite and pleasant person to listen to in some of his interviews, he none the less in his recent article, brings up these same problems discussed in the above articles, and also the inherent contradiction of the Sedevacantist position. Namely, the aspect of the independent spirit of "Protestantism".

While all through out his article, he labels many different thoughts of "SSPX people", some even strange ones, he does say that the "Recognize-and-Resist SSPX camp" do act like Protestants in their conclusions, at the same time, the Sedevacantist are not Protestants; yet, he has in his own article the articulation of the very same Protestant spirit of acting really like a Protestant: Independence from Authority; Judging for himself who is Pope, who is not; what is held as teaching, what is not, etc. -That is Protestantism!

It's another example, as Bishop Williamson says, "Protestants and Sedevacantist are two sides of the same coin"

Here is the article:

http://truerestoration.blogspot.com.es/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monday, March 18, 2013

The serenity of sedevacantism: reflections on the 2013 "conclave"

During the 2005 "conclave" I was still solidly in the "Recognize-and-Resist" SSPX camp. I was glued to the screen watching ballot after ballot and excitedly calling friends about Ratzinger and his solid chances to be "elected." I had not really done my homework on him at the time; I just remembered glossy pictures in Latin Mass and excerpts from The Ratzinger Report I had read in my salad days of Traditional Catholicism. I thought that he would definitely be more "traditional" than JPII, but would that be enough?

As the white smoke billowed my heart jumped, like the heart of any true Catholic who thinks he/she is witnessing the election of a true pope. True Catholics have a tremendous attachment to the office and person of the Pope - an office given to us by Christ to hold His scepter over His Church. To bind and loose - in His place - in our short time in this life.

I called two friends and we chatted excitedly about what this would mean. The one friend, always (and still today) an Indult type, the other SSPX though "sedevacantist friendly." While I was in the SSPX I was in the minority of people who considered sedevacantism a valid "alternative explanation" so I didn't have the time or inclination to demonize it as "non-Catholic" or label it with all the other insane labels R&R types have to put on an idea in order to emotionally pollute themselves from calmly looking at it.

But even in 2005 I felt disconnected from the Novus Ordo sect - the organization that appears to the outside world to be the visible Catholic Church but metaphysically is an impostor. In 2005 I still saw with my eyes of flesh instead of my eyes of faith, and I had not confronted the one issue that to this day dominates every fiber of Joseph Ratzinger's being: Vatican II.

All the problems and issues we see and experience today go back to Vatican II and the question of the Pope. Is Vatican II an ecuмenical council of the Catholic Church or is it not? Is it to be accepted as coming from Christ through His Church or is it not?

Standard R&R answers (keep in mind that typically these answers will come from the mouths of people - and sometimes clergy! - who have not even read one single docuмent of Vatican II):
•   Pastoral council
•   Non-binding, and besides, there's no heresy anyway!
Sedevacantist responses (to the above points):
•   Please show us where in previous Catholic teaching a "pastoral council" is defined and what its authority is. Church history shows us there are valid councils and invalid councils. We don't have any "in-betweeners."
•   Nope. Every single docuмent ends with the same formulary as in Trent, with "I, Paul, Bishop of Rome, etc." One can make the outrageous claim that it is non-binding, except for the fact that it has guided the Novus Ordo sect in every aspect for the last half-century. You can claim all you want that it's not binding - but the Novus Ordo sect de-Catholicized every country which still recognized Jesus Christ as King (thanks Dignitatis Humanae - which by the way contains heresy directly contrary to the teachings of the pre-Vatican II popes). The Novus Ordo sect destroyed the faith of millions by introducing the even-less-than-banal Novus Ordo Missae (thanks Sacrosanctum Concilium - which contains statements and propositions and attitudes condemned by Mediator Dei). Saying it's "not binding" reminds me of Neville Chamberlain coming back to England waving a piece of paper he had signed with Hitler. The facts weren't important...we had a piece of paper!
For the sedevacantist, life is fairly simple: Vatican II is an invalid council (we have precedent in Church history) implemented by anti-popes (we have precedent in Church history). Given that "he who is not of the body cannot be the head" (St. Robert Bellarmine) we serenely await an intervention of Our Lord (we have precedent in the Great Western Schism, where Our Lord used human instruments to end the crisis) and in the meantime we work out our salvation in fear and trembling, attending Mass where we can and when we can't, saying the Rosary and trying to sanctify our lives.

We don't set up parallel churches or our own wedding tribunals (SSPX) or attempt to judge each and every action of the body we call "The Holy See" as orthodox or not by referencing our own judgment in reference to "Tradition"(that judgment being not guaranteed by anything).

For the conservative or the recognize-and-resister, life is pretty complicated. Vatican II was a "bad, but certainly valid council" (an undefined idea in the Church with no precedent), implemented by valid popes (actions don't mean anything - a new period has been entered into in which we must know the hearts and minds of possible heretics before judging them as such - and that's a get-out-of-jail free card that only Martin Luther could have invented).

Given that you must have a valid Pope to consecrate Russia (because you live your life according to private revelation, while ignoring immediate doctrinal problems) you anxiously await the miracle of "the triumph of the Immaculate Heart" (while ignoring that Our Lady did not specify that the triumph would happen before the Final Judgement - oh, and you worship as a great "traditionalist" [Benedict XVI] a man who was complicit in the suppression of the Third Secret).

In the meantime, you resist whatever parts of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the 1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church, the latest version (2002) of the "Ordinary Form" (darkly humorous term) of the Mass, encyclicals, allocutions, and pretty much anything you want that would normally fall under the Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Church and therefore would normally fall under the charism of the Church's INDEFECTIBILITY not under the charism of the Pope's INFALLIBILITY. You resist, with your free will, these legal measures and docuмents from a man you call "Holy Father," who rules the juridical body you call "The Holy See," and is the man you view as the Vicar of Jesus Christ on Earth. Yet, you fail to see how this is not protestant behavior.

2013 was very different for me. I was able to watch the white smoke with the same sadness (yet serenity) that anyone who was alive during the Great Western Schism might have felt (if they had streaming internet back then, of course!). I knew that something was not right but I knew that God, not I, would fix it. I would not recognize a man as "Holy Father" who was blatantly not Catholic (Francis has celebrated Hanukkah with the Jews and has been prayed over by protestants - actions which would have earned him an excommunication and the title of apostate under any pre-Vatican II papacy). I know the Church has had many anti-popes in her history and unlike all Catholics before my era in the Church I have access to over 2000 years of Church history so I know there is nothing new under the sun. I'm not so arrogant as to believe the times of anti-popes have "passed."

To paraphrase St. Jerome, I live in an era in which the world has groaned, awoken, and marveled to find itself Modernist. The Arian crisis afflicted 95% of the Church of its time. The Modernist crisis has afflicted 99% of the Church of our time. To those in the 99% who are looking at this joker who has balloons at his "Masses," and is not even certainly a priest (he was ordained in the 1969 ordinal), consider joining the 1%. We don't have any crises of faith nor do we have to worry about all the anxiety and battles waged in the forums and websites of the neo-conservative and neo-trad Catholics. We know the truth: we understand the metaphysical realities of the situation though everything conspires to make us believe otherwise.

We know that Our Lord promised to be with us always. And we hold Him to that promise. We wait on Him to fix the mess that men have made. And we don't force our reality (habemus papam!) to fit our pre-made conclusions (sedevacantism can't be right!). Like St. Thomas, we use reality to draw our conclusions. And when all other options are inadequate to explain the situation, the remaining possibility, however uncertain to our eyes of flesh, must be the correct explanation, and will be seen by our eyes of faith.

Posted by Stephen Heiner

Machabees · « **Reply #144 on:** March 18, 2013, 10:26:06 PM »

I will remind those who follow Sedevacantism.

Those who go against the Authority of God, go against God Himself…

God is the Head of His Church.

He does know what He is doing.

Ambrose · « **Reply #145 on:** March 19, 2013, 12:37:05 AM »

Machabees,

Sorry I have not had time to respond, things have been very busy. I will have much more time soon to respond to your posts.

In the meantime, I would urge you to read some of the material and analysis on sedevacantism on the Bellarmine Forums: http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/index.php

If you give the position a fair hearing in your mind, I think you will find our position is much stronger than you think. There is a lot of misinformation out there.

Emerentiana · « **Reply #146 on:** March 19, 2013, 11:17:38 AM »

Quote

Some sedevacantists consider their position as a "likely opinion," and consent to receive the sacraments from non-sedevacantist priests, while others, called "ultra" by the Fr. Coache,[1] make it a matter of faith, and refuse to assist at Masses where the priest prays for the pope. But what is common to all the sedevacantists is that they think that the pope should not be prayed for in public.

This position sounds exactly like the one which Fr Pfeiffer is now taking. He urges the resistence not to attend the neo SSPX masses where the priests are using "Una cuм"

Arent we really mixed up? The confusion seems like it grows and grows.

brainglitch · « **Reply #147 on:** March 19, 2013, 11:29:59 AM »

Quote from: Emerentiana

Quote
Some sedevacantists consider their position as a "likely opinion," and consent to receive the sacraments from non-sedevacantist priests, while others, called "ultra" by the Fr. Coache,[1] make it a matter of faith, and refuse to assist at Masses where the priest prays for the pope. But what is common to all the sedevacantists is that they think that the pope should not be prayed for in public.

This position sounds exactly like the one which Fr Pfeiffer is now taking. He urges the resistence not to attend the neo SSPX masses where the priests are using "Una cuм"

Arent we really mixed up? The confusion seems like it grows and grows.

Wait, are you saying that Fr. Pfeiffer is now a sedevacantist? Is this true?

Emerentiana · « **Reply #148 on:** March 19, 2013, 12:37:47 PM »

NO, Im not saying that at all. Im just saying that he is telling the resistence people not to attend the SSPX masses because the UNA cuм is used in their masses. Dont have time to research it now. Do your own research.
. If you read his comments you will see.

Ambrose · « **Reply #149 on:** March 20, 2013, 04:43:00 PM »

Quote from: Machabees

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Machabees
I am putting a general question out there to the sedevacantists.

With the election of the new Pope Francis, do you recognition him as the Pope, or is the "Chair" still vacant?

Based on the public evidence available, I withhold any acceptance of his claim to the papacy as I do not have any certainty that the man is a Catholic. There is evidence which casts serious doubt on whether he believes the Catholic Faith.

The onus is on him to assure of this fact as it has been with all of the Vatican II claimants. A Catholic does not have to accept the claim to the Petrine office of one who lacks a legitimate claim.

With all of the Cardinals now appointed by public heretics, who have claimed the office, the lawful electors are the remaining hierarchy who have a lawful claim to their offices and the remaining members of the Roman Clergy.

It is unclear if they accept him or not, but even if they do, as stated above, he also must be a Catholic, and that point is currently in dispute. A doubtful pope is no pope.

I hope that answers you question. God bless.

If you "vote no" to the new Pope because you have a doubt whether he is a Catholic, based of the public evidence available, then why do you "vote yes" without any doubt to say that the conciliar neo-modern Cardinals are "lawful electors [that] are the remaining hierarchy who have a lawful claim to their offices and the remaining members of the Roman Clergy'?

If all of these groups profess "public heresy", why do you only separate the Pope not to have a lawful office and not the rest?

Hello Machabees,

I think you are operating under an assumption that if there is a heretical anti-pope, then automatically those who in error adhere to him are by that fact heretics.

If a bishop is a member of the hierarchy, he does not lose jurisdiction over his diocese except for very specific reasons as described in the Code.

We can never assume that any of these bishops are heretics, we must rely on evidence of public heresy. Since we are in a situation with an undeclared heretic, then there cannot be any group blame, each bishop, priest and layperson must be dealt with separately.

It is possible due to the undeclared status of the anti-pope and the Conciliar sect, that Catholics can keep the Faith while falsely believing that the Conciliar sect is the Catholic Church. This principle applies to all members, bishops, priests and laity.