Mith, men better than me have argued this at length with you and others. I don't have any ground-shaking new aspects to put forward.
That is fine, but since you brought it up, I should remind readers that the arguments against the infallibility of these canonizations involve either adding conditions to papal infallibility which do not exist in the definition of papal infallibility per Vatican I (which has the consequent effect of turning infallibility into a meaningless tautology which has more of an effect on each individual member of the Church than it actually does on the Church proper) or in denying the infallibility of canonizations as such, thereby contradicting basically every known authority on the issue, including St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus and Benedict XIV who says that if those who say that a pope can err in canonizations are not heretics (notice how he doesn't say they're not heretics, he leaves the possibility open for this to be heresy) they are temerarious, givers of scandal and a host of other things which are mortal sins. And then finally there are those who, ignoring the ex cathedra language used in the canonizations, deny the very concept of indirect infallibility altogether. Just so the air is clear on just what exactly those who are "better than you" have argued at length.
I am a little curious though, on one hand you seem very disturbed by the certainty of R&R (here, Fr Pfeiffer's sermon), and you're insisting that all trads ought to be doubtful. Yet, you seem pretty certain yourself and not entertaining any doubts at all. Do you truly believe that doubt is the proper stance? Or is bringing people back to doubt simply a tactic to give people another shot, so to speak, at choosing to take the sedevacantist fork?
Actually, my claim is that they (R&R Catholics) are doubtful, not that they ought to be, although I believe that, too. One cannot resist legitimate authority in toto without being doubtful of its legitimacy. The resistance itself indicates the doubt.
And let's be really clear: we're not talking about a single "evil command" or a series of bad judgements, we are talking about a new religion altogether, with a new liturgy, new doctrine, new sacraments (which are doubtful, I might add) new laws, etc. And by new I don't mean updated or reformed, I mean not contained within the deposit of faith, and oftentimes conflicting with or even contradicting the deposit of faith. In other words, the "we've had bad popes before" rhetoric is a tract so misleading and without consideration for reality that it should never be used again. This is eons beyond "bad popes."
No Catholic could possibly have moral certainty that the men and the organization which has imposed these novelties is legitimate. One can only accept the new program if one doesn't have the faith* to begin with.
If it is true that a certain "Catholic" is morally certain that X is the pope and simultaneously persists in resisting his liturgy, sacraments, laws, teachings, catechisms, calendar, saints, places of worship, etc. of that certain pope, then one is certainly a schismatic**.
I've met too many R&R Catholics who are really just good and holy people trying their best than to rashly accuse them categorically of schism. They doubt these papacies, they just don't realize that they doubt them. This is for a combination of reasons, but chiefly it's because they've been told by the SSPX clergy (who likewise, I believe, doubt these papacies) that sedevacantism is false. It's really just political, at the end of the day. Every group needs to keep the pews warm so every group needs a reason why they "have the truth." For the SSPX, it's that sedevacantists are wrong. For the SSPV it's that the Thuc clergy are doubtful or unlawful. For a lot of the non-CMRI sedes, it's that the "una cuŠ¼" mass is somehow unholy (I haven't yet figured out if the CMRI have their unique doctrine, I don't actually think they do). And then, even if "the group" or a significant number within the group are inclined to re-open a question or change their mind on an issue, there is the problem of scandalizing the faithful and of making the group look bad-- can you imagine what would happen if the SSPV just up and said "we were wrong about the Thuc clergy all those years?" Well, for starters, there's no reason for someone to continue going to the SSPV, all other things being equal. That's just one example. Anyways, it's effectively brainwashing. An R&R Catholic approaches every crisis question not with "what are the relevant Catholic principles I can apply to this, as established by the popes, saints and theologians so that I can arrive at the truth" but with "how can I explain this within the framework of the SSPX's view of the crisis?" They might employ some sound principles when they begin their investigation, but the other (and unspoken) premise is that "sedevacantism is false" and naturally any explanation of the crisis which leads to it is false. This is why R&R Catholics typically only cite modern SSPX theologians, because the theologians, saints and popes before VII cannot be found supporting their position, not in its current stage anyways. The sedevacantists, on the other hand, not only cite pre-VII authors, they cite them in droves. It is also interesting to consider that such writers do not have a "horse in the race." Naturally an SSPX writer will be writing with at least an implicit goal of enforcing his position on the crisis. Pre-VII authorities do not have this tinge, which is why they are so incredibly helpful in figuring this mess out.
As such, most R&R Catholics do not gather the relevant evidence or interpret it such a way that can even lead to moral certainty in the first place. The chief concern is with preserving the R&R structure. It "can't" be false.
I actually agree that all serious trads should entertain this doubt. But not for life. They eventually have to choose which side tips the scales. Even then, it probably doesn't hurt to run through the arguments every now and then to remind themselves of what they are and why they chose the side they did.
Doubts should be resolved, yes, but sometimes they can't be. I'm not saying this isn't a doubt that can't be resolved as I obviously think it is, but I am only me and I can speak for only me and others doubts may last longer, indefinitely or possibly never be resolved. In lieu of resolving a doubt (in this case, a speculative doubt which is not applied to a concrete case, i.e., one does not sin by acting without resolving it), the idea of "choosing a side" is not a decision that is morally certain; moral certainty means that with the evidence available, the opposite conclusion (i.e., the decision not made) would be imprudent and/or rash for any reasonable man. Taking a position simply to resolve a doubt, without actually resolving it is not the same as reaching moral certainty. Simply choosing to take a position for the sake of it does not resolve the doubt, it merely pushes it away so that one can appear to have a veneer of certainty while one actually doesn't.
The arguments are neck and neck but there's something about R&R that always tips the scales for me. The moral certainty of R&R that disturbs you that Pope Francis IS Pope, is the same moral certainty that disturbs me about sedevacantists claiming he isn't. I just don't see how we can be morally certain that he isn't.
Interestingly enough, you've actually exhibited your doubt. If something is, then it can't possibly not be. So if you can't have moral certainty that one isn't the pope, neither do you have moral certainty that he is the pope. If you have moral certainty that he is the pope, then you simultaneously have moral certainty that he isn't an antipope. To put it in more understandable terms, if you are morally certain that someone is alive, you also have moral certainty that someone isn't dead. But if you don't have moral certainty that he isn't dead, you don't have moral certainty that he is alive. You are in a state of doubt. This is exactly what I'm describing.
*I do accept that there are those within the Novus Ordo who are Catholic in spite of it, out of ignorance more than anything. Such Catholics merely pay lip service to "the pope" and say they "accept" Vatican II but when questioned, exhibit no unorthodoxy and do not positively express the errors of the New Church, their "membership" in it notwithstanding. But we are talking about traditional Catholics here, especially recognize and resist traditional Catholics.
** I know that Sean Johnson would probably interject here the doctrine of necessity article by the SSPX. It is true that an evil command can never be followed; the argument is not that "he's your pope you need to accept his errors" but to highlight the obstinate and relentless contradiction that St. Robert put to us rhetorically: "how can we avoid our head?" Herein is one of the reasons why theologians have taught that a manifest heretic loses his office, and that a heretic pope ceases to be pope ipso facto. The alternative (the heretic pope remaining pope, or in the case of most of the conciliar pontiffs, the heretic achieving the papacy) leads to a contradiction of right reason and Catholic discipline; i.e., we are "bound" to reject the magisterium and teaching authority of the pope and even the Church (viz. rejecting the N.O.M., the new CIC, the new catechism, the new saints, the new calendar, etc.).
I think I disagree that R&R are necessarily doubtful. Some individuals are (as I am on occasion) but it's not necessary to the position. I think it's more than possible to resist authority without doubting its legitimacy. When I think of other examples of authority I don't envision them dethroned, so to speak, the minute they are wrong or evil. Parents come to mind. Heads of household. One can resist them without doubting the legitimacy of that person's position. You're resisting the action, not the person or their God-given authority. You can even have an evil husband/father that you have to separate from and it doesn't change that he is the legitimate husband, father and head of that family. He would be a bad head, but a head nonetheless. So no, resistance to evil actions does not necessarily mean doubt about the legitimacy of that person's position. There were criticisms eariler about Fr Pfeiffer saying we are united to Pope Francis but not his Papacy. I took that to mean what I said above. We are united to him as Pope but not necessarily to his actions as a bad Pope.
R&R do have to tread more water than sedes though, I will give you that. Sedes hold an "easier" position. That man isn't the Pope, done, hands washed. There's a finality to it that is not found in R&R. R&R have to re-evaluate every time something happens. Is it possible for someone like Francis to be elected Pope? What about the recent canonizations? etc... I think that sense of finality is what attracts a lot of people to sedevacantism. I empathize but believe that ultimately it's misplaced.
Interestingly enough, you've actually exhibited your doubt. If something is, then it can't possibly not be. So if you can't have moral certainty that one isn't the pope, neither do you have moral certainty that he is the pope. If you have moral certainty that he is the pope, then you simultaneously have moral certainty that he isn't an antipope. To put it in more understandable terms, if you are morally certain that someone is alive, you also have moral certainty that someone isn't dead. But if you don't have moral certainty that he isn't dead, you don't have moral certainty that he is alive. You are in a state of doubt. This is exactly what I'm describing.
That is me but truthfully I haven't figured out if it's because I'm doing due diligence or because I am allowing stumbling blocks to confuse and create doubt where it ought not be. Even with this in mind though, my tendency is still towards R&R. From the positive viewpoint, I am more convinced of their arguments. From the negative viewpoint, on Judgment Day which would be worse --- being unsure therefore denying and disrespecting someone who it turns out WAS Pope? Or being unsure and recognizing someone who it turns out WASN'T Pope? I think the fact that we can't be sure that he isn't Pope bears more weight than the fact that we can't be sure that he is. I know these aren't considered theological arguments but when both are neck and neck these are the little things that tip the balance.
Another non-theological point is that I believe Satan wants what's God's. When you think about Satanists and Black Masses, Satan doesn't bother with fake protestant rituals. He wants the REAL thing. He wants a REAL host. I think he wants control of REAL Popes and he'll use every loophole beyond our understanding to do so. Not that the Faith itself has loopholes but our understanding of it does. Not everything has been defined yet which is why we largely have to depend on opinions, and sometimes contrary ones, to analyze the crisis. I honestly don't believe Satan could do near as much damage with a fake Pope. If this isn't the end, there will likely be many definitions that rise up out of these ashes for future reference.
Topic: Outstanding Sermon on Sedevacantism by Fr. Pfeiffer (Read 48109 times)