Author Topic: Eleison Comments 52115 (Read 1288 times)

Pilar · « **on:** March 22, 2015, 09:33:30 PM »

EMOTIONAL ARGUING March 21, 2015

Sedevacs say: “True Popes we have not had.”
Instincts are good, but reasoning is bad.

An old-fashioned comparison has the advantage of being very clear: on the back of a mule a heavy pack can be difficult to balance. If it shifts to the left, one must push it to the right. If it tilts to the right, it must be pushed to the left. But such double pushing is not contrary – it has the single purpose of keeping the pack balanced. Similarly, for these “Comments” to argue repeatedly against sedevacantism is not to push towards liberalism, nor is it to suggest that sedevacantism is as bad as liberalism. It is merely to recognize that the outrageous words and deeds of the present occupant of the Holy See are tempting many good Catholics to renounce their reason and to judge of reality by their emotions. That is a common practice today, but it is not Catholic.

For instance sedevacantist arguments are, upon examination, never as strong as they can seem. Let us look at two that have crossed my desk recently, both from devout Catholics, strong in the Faith. Here is the first: Conciliar Popes, especially Francis, have not confirmed their brethren in the Faith. But it is of the essence of a Pope to do that. Therefore the Conciliar Popes are not essentially Popes. In reply one must distinguish a Pope in his being from a Pope in his action. A Pope becomes essentially Pope in his being by his valid election in a Conclave of Cardinals, or by his election, if it was invalid in itself, being convalidated by his subsequent acceptance as Pope by the Universal Church (which may have been the case for more than one Conciliar Pope, God knows). On the contrary, by confirming his brethren in the Faith a Pope is essentially Pope in his action. The two things are different and can be separated. Therefore a Pope can fail in action without necessarily ceasing to be a Pope in his being. That is surely the case of several, if not all, the Conciliar Popes.

And here is the second argument: for the individual and fallible Catholic to set himself up as judge of error by the Church’s infallible Magisterium is ridiculous. Faced then by obvious error (e.g. Conciliarism) by that Magisterium (e.g. the Conciliar Popes), he can only conclude that they have not been true Popes. But, in reply, the Pope is not necessarily the Church’s infallible Magisterium. If he neither engages all four strict conditions of the Extraordinary Magisterium, nor teaches in accordance with the Church’s Ordinary Magisterium, then he is fallible, and if he contradicts that Ordinary Magisterium then he is certainly in error, and can be judged to be such by any Catholic (or non-Catholic!) making the right use of his God-given mind. Otherwise how could Our Lord have warned us to beware of false prophets and of wolves in sheeps’ clothing (Mt. VII, 15–20)?

In fact both arguments can come from an emotional rejection of the Conciliar Popes: “They have so maltreated the Church that I simply cannot accept that they were Popes!” But what if I had been a bystander watching the original Way of the Cross? – “This is such maltreatment of Jesus that I simply cannot accept any longer that he is the Son of God!” Would not my emotional rejection of the maltreatment have been right, and yet my conclusion wrong? There is a mystery involved in the Conciliar Popes which sedevacantism passes by.

Now it may be, when the Church one day comes back to her senses, that the alone competent authority will declare that the Conciliar Popes were not Popes, but between now and then the arguments so far brought forward to prove the See of Rome to be vacant are not as conclusive as they can be made to appear.

Kyrie eleison.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #1 on:** March 23, 2015, 09:51:02 AM »

Quote from: +Williamson

Now it may be, when the Church one day comes back to her senses, that the alone competent authority will declare that the Conciliar Popes were not Popes, but between now and then the arguments so far brought forward to prove the See of Rome to be vacant are not as conclusive as they can be made to appear.

His Excellency Bishop Williamson is not a sedeplenist; he is a sede-doubtist, just like myself.

Pilar · « **Reply #2 on:** March 23, 2015, 01:10:03 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: +Williamson

Now it may be, when the Church one day comes back to her senses, that the alone competent authority will declare that the Conciliar Popes were not Popes, but between now and then the arguments so far brought forward to prove the See of Rome to be vacant are not as conclusive as they can be made to appear.

His Excellency Bishop Williamson is not a sedeplenist; he is a sede-doubtist, just like myself.

Sede-doubtist is a new term for me, but how it is possible that anyone can know with absolute certainty that any pope is pope, much less the VII popes?

I seem to recall Archbishop Lefebvre himself admitting to doubt in this matter.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** March 23, 2015, 01:41:22 PM »

Quote from: Pilar

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: +Williamson

Now it may be, when the Church one day comes back to her senses, that the alone competent authority will declare that the Conciliar Popes were not Popes, but between now and then the arguments so far brought forward to prove the See of Rome to be vacant are not as conclusive as they can be made to appear.

His Excellency Bishop Williamson is not a sedeplenist; he is a sede-doubtist, just like myself.

Sede-doubtist is a new term for me, but how it is possible that anyone can know with absolute certainty that any pope is pope, much less the VII popes?

Ah, you ask the right question. Pre-Vatican II theologians dealing with the question of papal legitimacy classified it as a dogmatic fact, fact because it's in the nature of an event rather than a doctrine, and dogmatic because it's so intimately tied to dogma that it must be believed with the certainty of faith. So, for instance, if I'm living during the reign of Pius XII and he's defining the Dogma of the Assumption, I cannot have the certainty of faith regarding the Assumption if I do not also have the certainty of faith regarding the legitimacy of Pius XII. That follows according to the logical principle: peiorem partem semper sequitur conclusio.

So then, for instance, a prominent theologian writing during the reign of Pius XII said it would be heresy to reject the legitimacy of Pius XII.

Then, to get to your core question, theologians usually cite Legitimate Election + Universal Acceptance as the a priori criteria for establishing the legitimacy of a pope with the certainty of faith. NO CATHOLIC ever doubted the legitimacy of Pius XII, so we know that he was legitimate with the certainty of faith due to the indefectibility of the Church.

Of course, it all gets a little more mirky and nuanced with the V2 Popes, and I'd rather not get into the theology of it here as it's been hotly debated in the Crisis section of CI. But I'll segway here into your next point.

Quote

I seem to recall Archbishop Lefebvre himself admitting to doubt in this matter.

Correct. And here so does Bishop Williamson. Bishop Tissier has made even stronger comments. If +Lefebvre and +Williamson and +Tissier say that it's POSSIBLE that we'll know some day that these popes have been illegitimate or that it's POSSIBLE for a good Catholic to hold (at least as a private opinion or well-formed doubt) that these popes MIGHT be illegitimate, that by itself PRECLUDES their holding V2 Papal Legitimacy with the requisite "certainty of faith", for, you see, certainty of faith absolutely precludes any possibility of the opposite being true.

So at that point one enters into what theologians classified as a "Papa Dubius" ("Doubtful Pope") position. So these theologians formulated the maxim, "Papa Dubius Nullus Papa" ("a doubtful pope is no pope"), meaning that these popes effectively lose authority as a result because, SINCE THERE'S DOUBT, they can no longer be upheld with the certainty of faith as a rule of faith. Father Jenkins cited a theologian who writes that such popes no longer FORMALLY exercise authority even if materially in possession of the See. Canon Lawyers also state that one is not guilty of schism if refusal of submission to the Holy See stems from widespread, grave, well-founded positive doubts about their legitimacy.

Father Chazal recently used similar language, that they have lost authority and can be "disregarded" due to their public heresy; he referred to them as being in "quarantine".

That's the position I have adopted, what I call SEDE-DOUBTISM. Yes, it's not surprising that the term is new to you; that's because I made it up (partly tongue-in-cheek but to make a strong point). And I hold that neither +Lefebvre, nor +Williamson, nor +Tissier are SEDEPLENISTS in the true sense because they do not hold to the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants with the certainty of faith. This justifies what Father Chazal referred to as a categorical "disregard" for their "authority". It's akin to the theory called sedimpeditism except with a greater emphasis on the principle that Church authority would be required in order to definitively answer the question and eliminate the doubt. I reject SVism because it allows individual Catholics with their private judgment to EFFECTIVELY depose popes and disregard their authority. We can do no more than to raise the doubt but defer to Holy Mother Church to definitively answer this question.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #4 on:** March 23, 2015, 03:17:43 PM »

Quote from: Pilar

In fact both arguments can come from an emotional rejection of the Conciliar Popes: “They have so maltreated the Church that I simply cannot accept that they were Popes!” But what if I had been a bystander watching the original Way of the Cross? – “This is such maltreatment of Jesus that I simply cannot accept any longer that he is the Son of God!” Would not my emotional rejection of the maltreatment have been right, and yet my conclusion wrong? There is a mystery involved in the Conciliar Popes which sedevacantism passes by.

The Bishop speaks of Popes mistreating the Church then he alludes to the first Way of the Cross and speaks of those who abandoned Christ in their Hearts even though the didn't physically run away. The Conciliar Popes are not to be seen as Our Lord carrying His cross but rather they are much closer to Judas who sold Our Lord for money. The Conciliar Popes sold Our Lord for the fellowship and esteem of the modernist world which also views abortion as an acceptable action and divorce as normal and contradicts directly Our Lord's warning that if we were of the world the world would celebrate us as its own. After making this deal with the modern world, the conciliar popes are now treating the Church as if it were a club that is generally a good idea to belong to but if you belong to a different club and have a clean conscience that's ok too.

JPaul · « **Reply #5 on:** March 24, 2015, 07:40:59 AM »

And one might point out in balance, that the arguments which have been brought forward so far by the R&Rist camp, that the conciliar popes are indeed the legitimate popes of the Church, are certainly not as conclusive as they can be made to appear.