POPES FALLIBLE

Neither liberals nor sedevacantists appreciate being told that they are like heads and tails of the same coin, but it is true. For instance, neither of them can conceive of a third alternative. See for instance in his Letter to Three Bishops of April 14, 2012 , how Bishop Fellay could see no alternative to his liberalism except sedevacantism. Conversely, for many a sedevacantist if one accepts that any of the Conciliar Popes has really been Pope, then one can only be a liberal, and if one criticises sedevacantism, then one is promoting liberalism. But not at all!

Why not? Because both of them are making the same error of exaggerating the Pope’s infallibility. Why? Might it be because both of them are modern men who believe more in persons than in institutions? And why should that be a feature of modern men? Because from more or less Protestantism onwards, fewer and fewer institutions have truly sought the common good, while more and more seek some private interest such as money (my claim on you), which of course diminishes our respect for them. For instance, good men saved for a while the rotten institution of modern banking from having immediately all its evil effects, but the rotten banksters are at last showing what the institutions of fractional reserve banking and central banks were, in themselves, from the beginning. The Devil is in modern structures, thanks to the enemies of God and man.

So it is understandable if modern Catholics have tended to put too much faith in the Pope and too little in the Church, and here is the answer to that reader who asked me why I do not write about infallibility in the same way that the classic Catholic theology manuals do. Those manuals are marvellous in their way, but they were all written before Vatican II, and they tended to attach to the Pope an infallibility which belongs to the Church. For instance, the summit of infallibility is liable to be presented in the manuals as a solemn definition by the Pope, or by Pope with Council, but in any case by the Pope. The liberal-sedevacantist dilemma has been the consequence and, as it were, a punishment of this tendency to overrate the person and underrate the institution, because the Church is no merely human institution.

For, firstly, the Solemn Magisterium’s snow-cap on the Ordinary Magisterium’s mountain is its summit only in a very limited way – it is completely supported by the rock summit beneath the snow. And secondly, by the Church’s most authoritative text on infallibility, the Definition of the truly Catholic Council of Vatican I (1870), we know that the Pope’s infallibility comes from the Church, and not the other way round. When the Pope engages all four conditions necessary for ex cathedra teaching, then, says the Definition, he posses ses “that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine.” But of course! Where else can infallibility come from, except from God? The best of human beings, and some Popes have been very good human beings, may be inerrant, i.e. make no mistakes, but as long as they have original sin they cannot be infallible as God alone can be. If they are infallible, the infallibility must come through, but from outside, their humanity, from God, who chooses to bestow it through the Catholic Church, and that infallibility need only be a momentary gift, for the duration of the Definition.

Therefore outside of a Pope’s ex cathedra moments, nothing stops him from talking nonsense such as the new religion of Vatican II. Therefore neither liberals nor sedevacantists need or should heed that nonsense, because, as Archbishop Lefebvre said, they have 2000 years’ worth of Ordinarily infallible Church teaching by which t o judge that it is nonsense.

Kyrie eleison.

I don't have a problem with sedevacantism. It is a theological opinion well within the realm of possibilities, given the sheer unprecedented depth of this crisis. I know of no sedevacantist who has a desire foreign to that of wanting to remain truly faithful to the Holy Roman Catholic Church which Our Lord founded.

We are indeed sheep scattered about without a shepherd--and so in vain do we search for one in these dire apocalyptic times, per the words of Our Lady. Rooted in the doctrines of the Faith, each must fend for himself in the manner that he best knows how. If the sedevacantists should be judged by history one day for having been on its wrong side, theirs would amount to an error of "fact" but not of "faith."  

I don't have a problem with sedevacantism. It is a theological opinion well within the realm of possibilities, given the sheer unprecedented depth of this crisis. I know of no sedevacantist who has a desire foreign to that of wanting to remain truly faithful to the Holy Roman Catholic Church which Our Lord founded.

We are indeed sheep scattered about without a shepherd--and so in vain do we search for one in these dire apocalyptic times, per the words of Our Lady. Rooted in the doctrines of the Faith, each must fend for himself in the manner that he best knows how. If the sedevacantists should be judged by history one day for having been on its wrong side, theirs would amount to an error of "fact" but not of "faith."  

I agree, 100%. That said, I thought a Catholic is forbidden to make such a judgement. I admit however I could be wrong, that is, consider an elected pope a no-pope. That is the trouble with theological opinions.

I don't have a problem with sedevacantism. It is a theological opinion well within the realm of possibilities, given the sheer unprecedented depth of this crisis. I know of no sedevacantist who has a desire foreign to that of wanting to remain truly faithful to the Holy Roman Catholic Church which Our Lord founded.

We are indeed sheep scattered about without a shepherd--and so in vain do we search for one in these dire apocalyptic times, per the words of Our Lady. Rooted in the doctrines of the Faith, each must fend for himself in the manner that he best knows how. If the sedevacantists should be judged by history one day for having been on its wrong side, theirs would amount to an error of "fact" but not of "faith."  

I agree.  However, I could not say the same of sedeplenism: I know some sedeplenists who have a desire foreign to that of wanting to remain truly faithful to the Holy Roman Catholic Church which Our Lord founded.

Regarding the sedevacantists being judged by history, we have to consider that sedeplenists could be the ones being on the wrong side.  We are here before opinions.  And opinions may be right or wrong.

The problem is that usually one sees sedevacantists as persons who have dogmatized their opinion.  And certainly there are some sedevacantists who have, but that does not mean that sedevacantism is something intrinsically bad.  It is just that some sedevacantists got it wrong.  But exactly the very same may be said of sedeplenists.

Tell me how the great Bishop Williamson's or RR's positions on the Crisis of the Church is any different than sedeprivationism. They don't officially declare themselves SPs but, in essence, I see little to no difference. If you don't know sedeprivationism, then you don't know true nature of the Crisis.

It's remarkably different.  In the first place, sedeprivationism admits that these men are antipopes.  It's really just sedevacantism explained in a different way.  Privationists hold that the elections of the conciliar popes were true elections, but that the men who were elected were prevented from ever accepting the election (due to being nonCatholics/heretics).  There are other differences and distinctions as well, but that's the short and sweet of it.

That's nothing at all like R&R.

Quote from: cassini

Quote from: Skunkwurxsspx

I don't have a problem with sedevacantism. It is a theological opinion well within the realm of possibilities, given the sheer unprecedented depth of this crisis. I know of no sedevacantist who has a desire foreign to that of wanting to remain truly faithful to the Holy Roman Catholic Church which Our Lord founded.

We are indeed sheep scattered about without a shepherd--and so in vain do we search for one in these dire apocalyptic times, per the words of Our Lady. Rooted in the doctrines of the Faith, each must fend for himself in the manner that he best knows how. If the sedevacantists should be judged by history one day for having been on its wrong side, theirs would amount to an error of "fact" but not of "faith."  

I agree, 100%. That said, I thought a Catholic is forbidden to make such a judgement. I admit however I could be wrong, that is, consider an elected pope a no-pope. That is the trouble with theological opinions.

That's an important point, cassini, and one which has deterred well-meaning Catholics of untold numbers from making that "leap," despite sensing in their inmost core that something is indeed dead wrong inside the Church (and we of course refer here strictly to the ills of the human element wherein the crisis lies).

I would agree that it is certainly not our place to presume upon ourselves what amounts to an "official pronouncement" over what is happening in the Church. That said, we cannot avoid the use of private judgment at the pragmatic level to protect our faith.

If, for example, I have witnessed someone stealing money, I would not wait until the authorities officially declared that person a thief and a criminal to avoid any association with that person. In the same manner, my views on whether so-and-so is really pope cannot be binding on another Catholic. That said, I am not going to wait until hell freezes over to take active, pragmatic steps to block that person's corrupt, heterodox teachings from entering into my household.

Private judgment is necessary, unavoidable, and happens all the time in our daily battle against the enemies of our soul and the Church. It only becomes a problem when we mistakenly elevate it to the level of an official pronouncement. That, only the legitimate Church authorities can dish out when the Church is once again restored and evermore strengthened to one day confront the Antichrist and his minions head-on in that final, glorious battle.  

That was a great post.

Adolphus said

His Excellency has, more than once, used expressions that lead to think he sees a true pope in the person occupying the Holy See, not only a potential pope.

Mithrandylan said

It's remarkably different.  In the first place, sedeprivationism admits that these men are antipopes.  It's really just sedevacantism explained in a different way.  Privationists hold that the elections of the conciliar popes were true elections, but that the men who were elected were prevented from ever accepting the election (due to being nonCatholics/heretics).  There are other differences and distinctions as well, but that's the short and sweet of it.

I understand these positions, but I see Bishop Williamson & RR recognizing Francis and the magisterium as pope and bishops, respectfully, while at the same time resisting them because they're heretics, essentially being the same as sedeprivationsim recognizing that Francis is only a material pope, and he should be resisted until he converts to the true Faith, which would make his papacy whole and infallible. It's essentially the same position but different semantics used to identify one's own position.

Why didn't Bp. Williamson write about something else, instead of attacking a theologically valid opinion?  Why didn't he, for example, clarify his lapsus clavis in his Eleison Comments number 373 in which he wrote:

Quote from: Bp. Williamson EC 373

One of the most important Catholic dogmas is that of original sin, whereby all human beings (except Our Lord and his Mother) have a nature seriously wounded from birth through our mysterious solidarity with Adam

I think [and hope] it was a lapsus clavis, but even so, it would have been worthy to emend the error as soon as possible.

Looks like the Catholic Encyclopedia also committed that slip of the key:

.... To take the word sin to mean death was an evident falsification of the text, so the Pelagians soon abandoned the interpretation and admitted that Adam caused sin in us. They did not, however, understand by sin the hereditary stain contracted at our birth, but the sin that adults commit in imitation of Adam....