Author Topic: Whats wrong with Sedeprivationism? (Read 2929 times)

Jehanne · « **on:** October 28, 2014, 09:56:23 AM »

I am posting this question here (Matthew can, of course, move it elsewhere) but it seems timely and relevant to the future situation of the SSPX being formally "excommunicated", assuming that such even happens. One, Sedeprivationism means that we don't have to obey a Pope who is a public heretic (and, hence, any excommunications from him are ipso facto null and void), and two, if said Pope (Francis) recants and abjures his heresies, then we would, then, be obliged to obey him, and by that very fact (his abjuration), he would attain the fullness of the Papacy.

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #1 on:** October 28, 2014, 10:47:10 AM »

Sedeprivationism seems to best explain the Crisis in the Church, and it seems to have the best response to it. Even before I learned there was an official position called "sedeprivationism", I, innately, pretty much held the same position... The response to the Crisis by SPs and RRs seems to be the same, but their semantical description of the Crisis and view of the Conciliar clerics, especially the hierarchy, is different. Semantically, the RR description, hence "recognize" is a logical contradiction. Both groups really should join together, for they both essentially believe the same about the Crisis, at least the response to it. I suspect what's holding them back are the past actions of several SPs. They need to publicly repent for their shameful civil suit against Archbishop Lefebvre. And
RR needs to admit their "recognizing" is not logically sound, although their response - "resist" - to the Crisis is very righteous and a defense against "Satan's masterstroke", which, "is to have succeeded in sowing disobedience to all tradition through obedience." ~ Archbishop Lefebvre

Bartholemew · « **Reply #2 on:** October 28, 2014, 08:37:11 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

I am posting this question here (Matthew can, of course, move it elsewhere) but it seems timely and relevant to the future situation of the SSPX being formally "excommunicated", assuming that such even happens. One, Sedeprivationism means that we don't have to obey a Pope who is a public heretic (and, hence, any excommunications from him are ipso facto null and void), and two, if said Pope (Francis) recants and abjures his heresies, then we would, then, be obliged to obey him, and by that very fact (his abjuration), he would attain the fullness of the Papacy.

The problem with Sedeprivationism is the belief that individual people can judge the pope to be a heretic. Every person has their own personal line that they draw where once crossed, the pope has "surely" become a heretic in their mind. I know people that saw a photoshopped picture of a conciliar pope supposedly giving someone the masonic handshake and for them, this was the straw that broke the camels back. Other people take a single quote out of context and feel that gives them the right to draw the "official line in the sand". The church never intended each person to decide when the head of the church has become a heretic and then give them the authority to break away in the name of truth, this makes no logical sense.

Not only this but Sedeprivationism eases people's consciences with disobeying the pope and is based on a misunderstanding of the infallibility of the papacy. The majority of the time that the pope speaks, he speaks as a man and can err. We as catholics have a duty not to follow error and it is completely allowable for us not to follow the pope into sin. However, as the head of the catholic church, he is still the leader and has some authority as such.

Here's an example: Your boss tells you that he is going out of town and puts the janitor in charge of your group. The janitor has now been given authority over you as long as he doesn't try to lead you into sin. If the janitor tells you to perform your duties in a different way than usual, you are obliged to obey him because "all authority comes from God" and he is your boss at that time. Whether or not the janitor made prudent decisions with his staff's time while the real boss was away will be judged at a later time when the real boss gets back.

PG · « **Reply #3 on:** October 28, 2014, 09:37:37 PM »

After Peters denial, he went fishing and the other apostles went with him. When Christ was on the shore calling out to them, John said to Peter, "it is the Lord". After which, Peter covered himself for he was naked, and threw himself in to the sea. Peter placed himself outside of his boat(the bark of Peter/the church). But, it is still his bark, and it will always remain so. That is what the church built on Peter means. Even if he becomes a heretic, he can still preserve unity. And, that is why we have Peter.

I think the best way to convince others of this positions legitimacy is to simply confess it. And, I do. I am a privationist. I am a privationist because I believe Peter is necessary for unity, whether a heretic or not. But, it cannot be denied that Francis is not catholic. He is a material heretic. His heresy has materialized in his words and works.

songbird · « **Reply #4 on:** October 28, 2014, 10:27:06 PM »

A pope must be Catholic, outwardly, or can not be nominated. There is marxists through out the New Order. Has been for 70 years or more. Even if a pope, not catholic, is nominated, he can not be pope. Even if he confesses, to who, and does he receive the sacrament, for all those ordained after 1967 have no ordination. Then even if that did happen correctly, you still need to have a valid nomination. If the Marxists were still in place, then what?

I do believe that it will take an act of God to make it Right.

PG · « **Reply #5 on:** October 28, 2014, 11:12:23 PM »

songbird and OP - being that the title of this thread was something like "whats wrong with privationism", I will say that the only thing that could possibly make privationism seem wrong is the idea that Francis is in possession of a "valid" claim to the papacy. Because, privationists believe that the claimants possess valid claims/elections. The impediment to the papacy is their heresy. And, I do still agree with this. The reason why I don't doubt the election claim of francis enough to doubt privationism is because there is no rival papacy. And, there are many reasons to doubt. But, there must be perpetual successors to the see of peter. Now, if there was a rival papacy, our conversation might be different. But, for now, and for the past 50 years, privation makes the most sense. Also, I avoid categorizing myself as a vacantist(the see being vacant). Because, I don't think we know enough about the papacy. If we did, this crisis would not have happened in the first place. The church immediately prior clearly had misconceptions.

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #6 on:** October 29, 2014, 02:35:40 AM »

Quote

The problem with Sedeprivationism is the belief that individual people can judge the pope to be a heretic.

No, the heretical statements, actions and promulgations of a (material only) pope determine, by their very acts, him to be a heretic. There is no subjective ruling by individual people. If nobody realized the heresy committed by Francis, that would not exonerate him from being a heretic. He'd still be a flaming heretic in the eyes of Our Lord and Peter.

Quote

The majority of the time that the pope speaks, he speaks as a man and can err. We as catholics have a duty not to follow error and it is completely allowable for us not to follow the pope into sin. However, as the head of the catholic church, he is still the leader and has some authority as such.

A pope is not supposed to err on matters pertaining to the Faith, morality, Canon Law and declaring sainthood, hence the pope's infallibility. He can only be in the Seat of Peter, not just materially, but fully, if he adheres to the true Catholic Faith. However, it's permissible for a pope to err on matters not pertaining to the aforementioned, such as science, civil matters, social issues, and frivolities. Doing such does not reflect him being a heretic or apostate in any way.

Bartholemew · « **Reply #7 on:** October 30, 2014, 06:31:19 PM »

This thread has inherently come back to the same old debate since Vatican II started.... I don't think it can be solved here :-)

songbird · « **Reply #8 on:** October 31, 2014, 04:12:29 PM »

PG: What are your thoughts on Chapter 12 of Daniel? Will the Sacrifice of the Mass come to and end? Will God permit this? Then what? Those that watched Christ die, did they think, "ah, God the Father would not permit His only Son to die in this fashion, or would He and why?

The New Order is heretic, for they say a "mess" that has no Precious Blood, true? Chapter 12 of Daniel will take place. And God will have His Day!