FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Benevacantism, Etc.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
(09-14-2020, 03:22 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:One very speculative theory of mine has to do with the abdication of the papacy through Paul VI's renunciation of the papal tiara at the end of Vatican II. Therefore, eliminating his authority to rule in the full power of the Petrine office. Since then, all popes have not been coronated, but inaugurated like mere elected officials. So, it could be said they have been acting in a lesser role by this redefinition of the Modernist papacy, and is unable to wield full papal authority. And it is there where I could see such a Presidential analogy could be applied.

That is interesting.  My concern would be similar to the Benevacantist position.  Wouldn't the resignation have to be intentional?  That said, with the errors about the Church that the post-Vatican II popes have embraced, I've sometimes wondered if they are exercising the real Magisterium or are they teaching through some defective system that, since it rejects the true Catholic Faith, has never exercised the true Magisterium (and the authority that comes with it).  But that is really, really something I know nothing about and don't commend that suggestion for any serious consideration.

Well, on the basis on intention, we could look at just how the post-V2 popes have operated since Paul VI, and see that they themselves have worked to fundamentally change the role of the papacy into what it is today under Francis (and which the R&R camp have, unfortunately, bought into as a result). Which is more like that of the EO view of the Bishop of Rome than the Supreme Pontiff that the role has always been in the West. This is just an accidental quality of my observations, but the change not only of the terms of "inauguration" versus "coronation"; but the very presentation of the pope as more of a Bishop-in-Chief than a Monarch of the Church, noting, again, the rejection of the tiara for the mitre.
If we are to look at these material changes to the papacy just in the past 60 years, we can see how the question of a formal change may be in order (in the line of sedeprivationism). This is most fully manifested with the confusion of Benedict's resignation; if we see the office of the papacy as just a Bishop-in-Chief, a mere elected Ecclesiastical official, then seeing a pope emeritus and a reigning pope in the New Church would not be so strange. Yet, under the idea of the papacy as a Monarcy, having a pope and a pope emeritus is an aberration, which makes it no wonder that such a position as Benevacantism has arisen. A Catholic pope does not share authority or office, and if he resigns, then he loses all titles and authority (see: St. Celestine V); he does not linger as an ex-pope or pope emeritus. Yet, we have just that in what claims to be the Church today, which is not unlike a change of Presidents.
(09-14-2020, 05:10 PM)Augustinian Wrote: [ -> ]Well, on the basis on intention, we could look at just how the post-V2 popes have operated since Paul VI, and see that they themselves have worked to fundamentally change the role of the papacy into what it is today under Francis (and which the R&R camp have, unfortunately, bought into as a result). Which is more like that of the EO view of the Bishop of Rome than the Supreme Pontiff that the role has always been in the West. This is just an accidental quality of my observations, but the change not only of the terms of "inauguration" versus "coronation"; but the very presentation of the pope as more of a Bishop-in-Chief than a Monarch of the Church, noting, again, the rejection of the tiara for the mitre.
If we are to look at these material changes to the papacy just in the past 60 years, we can see how the question of a formal change may be in order (in the line of sedeprivationism). This is most fully manifested with the confusion of Benedict's resignation; if we see the office of the papacy as just a Bishop-in-Chief, a mere elected Ecclesiastical official, then seeing a pope emeritus and a reigning pope in the New Church would not be so strange. Yet, under the idea of the papacy as a Monarcy, having a pope and a pope emeritus is an aberration, which makes it no wonder that such a position as Benevacantism has arisen. A Catholic pope does not share authority or office, and if he resigns, then he loses all titles and authority (see: St. Celestine V); he does not linger as an ex-pope or pope emeritus. Yet, we have just that in what claims to be the Church today, which is not unlike a change of Presidents.

I haven't really studied the issue of intention too thoroughly so none of my following comments will be very informed or, probably, informative.  Having said that, I don't know that the changing views of the Papacy have so altered the purported nature of the office that Francis and his predecessors intended to accept as to render their intention moot.  Speaking speculatively here, I do think it might be possible for modernists to so thoroughly change the understanding of the Papacy that what they put into practice would not be the Papacy.  I once read some very modernist document that was intended as a draft "Constitution of the Catholic Church" that was so thoroughly modernist and Anglican/liberal Episcopalian-like that there's no way the man who held the title of of "pope" in that nefarious document could be St. Peter's successor.  That draft document was made by some liberal Catholic academics, IIRC, so no one in the hierarchy proposed it.  But the thinking is present in varying degrees.  We know this from Benedict XVI's speculations about the Papacy, or at least some interpretations of what he wrote. 

At what point or what changes might be necessary for a substantial change to occur and that, by effect, creates a new office vaguely resembling the Papacy, I don't really know.  If Francis or his successor declare the office of Pope to be separate from the bishop of Rome, then put that into practice by appointing a "bishop of Rome" while the Pope globe trots to support far left causes like battling climate change or demolishing national borders?  I don't know.  I suppose many (especially R&R) would say that's just another thing Pope Francis has wrong and he is still the pope.  Would they be right?  I don't know.  I don't know if Francis would do that and, if he truly has fully received all the authority of the Papacy, I don't believe the Holy Ghost would allow such a move.  But what if Benedict XVI has started a new "tradition" whereby an elderly pope resigns his office and continues as a pope emeritus?  Will each pope emeritus stand to the side, or will they take on some continued role (much like former presidents often advise new presidents, sometimes sit on boards like Hoover did, etc.)?  What kind of recognition given to a pope emeritus would be too much?  Is the mere title alone too much or just a bad, but acceptable, idea?  I don't know.
(09-14-2020, 07:42 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]I haven't really studied the issue of intention too thoroughly so none of my following comments will be very informed or, probably, informative.  Having said that, I don't know that the changing views of the Papacy have so altered the purported nature of the office that Francis and his predecessors intended to accept as to render their intention moot.  Speaking speculatively here, I do think it might be possible for modernists to so thoroughly change the understanding of the Papacy that what they put into practice would not be the Papacy.  I once read some very modernist document that was intended as a draft "Constitution of the Catholic Church" that was so thoroughly modernist and Anglican/liberal Episcopalian-like that there's no way the man who held the title of of "pope" in that nefarious document could be St. Peter's successor.  That draft document was made by some liberal Catholic academics, IIRC, so no one in the hierarchy proposed it.  But the thinking is present in varying degrees.  We know this from Benedict XVI's speculations about the Papacy, or at least some interpretations of what he wrote. 
In my own speculative opinion, I would say that the divergence would be immediate once the man with the claim to the papal office goes against what the role of the Supreme Pontiff has been, as defined in Vatican I. Given the way that the Hierarchy has merely stepped back to let these things be implemented, tells me that there's been a gradual subversion to the nature of the office which has only become visibly manifest during the Francis pontificate.

Quote:At what point or what changes might be necessary for a substantial change to occur and that, by effect, creates a new office vaguely resembling the Papacy, I don't really know.  If Francis or his successor declare the office of Pope to be separate from the bishop of Rome, then put that into practice by appointing a "bishop of Rome" while the Pope globe trots to support far left causes like battling climate change or demolishing national borders?  I don't know.  I suppose many (especially R&R) would say that's just another thing Pope Francis has wrong and he is still the pope.  Would they be right?  I don't know.  I don't know if Francis would do that and, if he truly has fully received all the authority of the Papacy, I don't believe the Holy Ghost would allow such a move. 

The cognitive dissonance among the R&R would have to be invincible to accept such a change and still claim the man is a legitimate successor to St. Peter. I'm with you though, things have been so diabolically clouded thanks to the Modernist takeover of the Hierarchy that it's almost impossible to tell just where we can stand on this issue.

Quote:But what if Benedict XVI has started a new "tradition" whereby an elderly pope resigns his office and continues as a pope emeritus?  Will each pope emeritus stand to the side, or will they take on some continued role (much like former presidents often advise new presidents, sometimes sit on boards like Hoover did, etc.)?  What kind of recognition given to a pope emeritus would be too much?  Is the mere title alone too much or just a bad, but acceptable, idea?  I don't know.

And you're right, this is what I was getting at; the effort seems to redefine the role of the incumbent pope with that of the reigning pope, and the role thereafter, to something not unlike the operations of secular leaders today. We have already seen a redefinition of the relationship between Rome and the various Bishop's Conferences, which have operated more in a soviet-style. Most of the things we are expected to follow at Catholics have their recourse to soviets like the USCCB rather than Rome when it comes to matters of faith and morals.

I would have to take some time to really study the changes of the Vatican II papacy versus what was established in Vatican I before I could make a real judgment on the issue. I merely suspect that the intention is for a completely redefined Modernist view of the papacy, and had to have been behind Paul VI's revamp of the papal coronation/inauguration ceremony.
It is an interesting question, one I hadn't thought much about.  I agree that some extensive study of the Papacy before and after Vatican II would be needed to get an idea.  Unfortunately, I don't have the time or the skill for that kind of thing.  Hopefully, it'll never have to come to that kind of thing, as it'll only muddy the waters even more.  It will be interesting to see whether Francis resigns the Papacy or not, and what he does after any resignation.  Whether men like Francis consciously identify as modernists or not, their tendencies are definitely modernist.  That means they will allow evolution of dogma (well, putative evolution since it is actually impossible), though under the guise of development of doctrine, and one cannot really tell where that will lead to.  I never thought I'd see the day when unrepentant adulterers are readmitted to the Sacraments or to see a putative pope openly ally himself with far left globalist elites.  The Devil is, quite literally, in the details.  But, surprisingly, I'm not despairing over any of this.  The Church cannot be destroyed and, whatever sinful men and women choose to do, God will win and save His faithful from eternal damnation.
(09-17-2020, 02:55 PM)Bonaventure Wrote: [ -> ]From Non Veni Pacem...

Would you rather go to Hell than have Ann Barnhardt be right?

Sounds like Mr. Skojec is despairing.

Honestly, the problem is that the post-Vatican II church is a separate, heretical sect (arguably, a new religion), so the author of the blog is right in saying we shouldn't even be scandalized by a non-Catholic pope like Francis.

The real issue is the fragmentation of the true Catholic faith over the past 60 years into three separate, warring factions:

1. The blind loyalists: FSSP, ICKSP, Indult, and Diocesan traditionalists. Who are commendably dedicated to obedience to the hierarchy, but are also giving into literal spiritual poison by accepting all the tenets of Vatican II and the current hierarchy. They see Vatican II as ordinary magisterium, and adhere to it as such. These are essentially the "conservative" NO, who have relegated the "Extraordinary Form" of the Mass to the role of accidental preference, akin to something like High Anglicanism. They think the SSPX and Sedevacantists are schismatics.

2. Lefevbrists/R&R/Benevacantists: SSPX, SSPX-Resistance, Fatima center, Independent priests, etc. They are dedicated to preservation and promotion of true Catholic teaching, reject the errors of Vatican II, but unfortunately cling to the man sitting on the Chair of Peter in some misguided loyalty to the papacy. They reject most of which the post-Vatican II hierarchy teaches, pick and choose what teachings are "Catholic enough" while paying lip-service to the reigning pontiff. They state that Vatican II is not binding, even though Paul VI promulgated it formally as ordinary magisterial teaching, and act like the pope does not wield true authority, while at the same time stating that he does in fact teach with the full authority of Peter, just that everything needs a "stamp of infallibility" in order to be obeyed. This position, while well-intentioned, is actually falling into the trap of redefining role of the pope according to Modernist lines. They think Sedevacantists are heretics and schismatics, , and the loyalists are in error.

3. Sedevacantists/Sedeprivationists: Deny that any of the popes since John XXIII have been legitimate due to teaching public heresy. Deny that Vatican II was legally promulgated due to the illegitimacy of Paul VI's authority, and have basically relegated the Church to a tiny, tiny remnant that is stuck in a perpetual post-Pius XII limbo with no means of digging themselves out. They (rightly) agree with the R&R position that Vatican II should not be obeyed as regular Catholic teaching, but also point out that if one accepts the reigning pope as having full authority, then they must adhere to his ordinary magisterium, otherwise they are acting schismatically. Some say that the reigning pope holds the office materially, but cannot formally wield authority due to their teaching of public heresy. This is similar to the R&R, minus the recognition of the pope having authority. The problem with this position is that they fall into the trap of "heresy-hunting" and have no real solutions for bringing the Church out of a perpetual "sede vacante" state because they declare that there are no legitimate Cardinals to hold a new conclave. They think the loyalists are not Catholic and the SSPX are heretics and schismatics, as well as everyone who doesn't cleave to their specific Sedevacantist tribe.

As we can see here, the Devil has completely disoriented Catholics who still have the faith by influencing us to split into 3 opposing camps rather than coming together and rebuilding the Church based upon true Catholic teaching. As true Catholics, we have been wasting time wandering in the desert fighting each other when we should have been banding together to re-institute the Church as She was for almost 2,000 years. And this is why I can see how Mr. Skojec is at the point of despairing of the Catholic Faith because what purports to be the hierarchy is openly anti-Catholic, and the three options for true Catholicism are in shambles.
Well said, Augustinian.  I will add that the Sedeprivationist theory offers two possibilities for a resolution of the crisis: for the material pope to renounce heresy and assume the formal authority of the Papacy or for a material cardinal to renounce the errors of Vatican II and its aftermath (thereby creating at least one true cardinal).  None of that seems likely anytime soon but, if the Sedeprivationists are right, then it must happen at some point (or else Christ is a liar, an impossibility).  I don't hear the R&R talk as much about how the crisis might come to an end but I'm guessing it isn't different from the first Sedeprivationist option: the reigning pope, or a newly elected one, realizes the mistakes present in Vatican II and much of the post-Vatican II teaching and works to correct it.  Those in the FSSP/Diocesan TLM camp would probably just dispute that a real crisis, at least on the level the rest of us recognizes, actually exists.  

One thing that I am certain of: this crisis is going to last for a very long time, though it will come to end at some point.  That is part of what is so discouraging about it: there's no end in sight, at least nothing that strikes us as likely to happen in the near future.  With that comes the fear and anxiety that uncertainty often has attached to it.  I think the solution for anyone in that position is to focus less on the crisis itself and instead focus on practicing their faith, spending time with family and good friends, being productive at work or school, and enjoying some good, wholesome recreational activities.  Let the words of Our Lord bring us all comfort in these trying times: "Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you. Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof" (Matthew 6:33-34).
(09-17-2020, 06:53 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]I don't hear the R&R talk as much about how the crisis might come to an end but I'm guessing it isn't different from the first Sedeprivationist option: the reigning pope, or a newly elected one, realizes the mistakes present in Vatican II and much of the post-Vatican II teaching and works to correct it.  Those in the FSSP/Diocesan TLM camp would probably just dispute that a real crisis, at least on the level the rest of us recognizes, actually exists.  

I think the most serious problem with the R&R camp is that it is establishing a heavy-handed skepticism of what we may, and may not, obey in regard to the pope. Therefore redefining just what the role of the papacy is, much to the Modernists' delight. Even if, God-willing, this crisis were ended overnight by Sts. Peter and Paul descending from heaven and electing a new pope (Blessed Anna-Maria Taigi prophesied this), there could still be the mindset among these types that everything coming from the pope needs an infallible pronouncement in order to be binding. There is an established disorder among this position that has really set in regarding the papacy. As the late Fr. Cekada said, R&R really is stuck in a rut.

As for the Conservative NO's: God bless them for at least staying true to Catholic teaching on the papacy, even if they are blind to what is coming out of Rome these days as evil and heresy. At least they, and the Sedes, realize that if you recognize a pontiff as Christ's Vicar on Earth, you'd better damn well listen to what he has to say, infallible pronouncement or no.
(09-17-2020, 10:45 PM)Augustinian Wrote: [ -> ]I think the most serious problem with the R&R camp is that it is establishing a heavy-handed skepticism of what we may, and may not, obey in regard to the pope. Therefore redefining just what the role of the papacy is, much to the Modernists' delight. Even if, God-willing, this crisis were ended overnight by Sts. Peter and Paul descending from heaven and electing a new pope (Blessed Anna-Maria Taigi prophesied this), there could still be the mindset among these types that everything coming from the pope needs an infallible pronouncement in order to be binding.

What are we disobeying? That it's okay to give communion to unrepentant sinners? That man-made global warming climate change is a real thing? That it's okay to put idols in Catholic churches and worship them?

If it's not these things, what's being disobeyed?


(09-17-2020, 10:45 PM)Augustinian Wrote: [ -> ]As for the Conservative NO's: God bless them for at least staying true to Catholic teaching on the papacy, even if they are blind to what is coming out of Rome these days as evil and heresy.


But they pay attention to what Francis and his immediate predecessors say at the expense of 261 other popes. Doctrine doesn't change.
(09-17-2020, 11:28 PM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-17-2020, 10:45 PM)Augustinian Wrote: [ -> ]I think the most serious problem with the R&R camp is that it is establishing a heavy-handed skepticism of what we may, and may not, obey in regard to the pope. Therefore redefining just what the role of the papacy is, much to the Modernists' delight. Even if, God-willing, this crisis were ended overnight by Sts. Peter and Paul descending from heaven and electing a new pope (Blessed Anna-Maria Taigi prophesied this), there could still be the mindset among these types that everything coming from the pope needs an infallible pronouncement in order to be binding.

What are we disobeying? That it's okay to give communion to unrepentant sinners? That man-made global warming climate change is a real thing? That it's okay to put idols in Catholic churches and worship them?

If it's not these things, what's being disobeyed?

Yes, actually.  The fact is simple enough: Vatican II isn't optional in the Novus Ordo.  The idea that Vatican II was meant as some kind of nonbinding, nonobligatory "pastoral" council doesn't match the facts.  Paul VI did refer to it as a pastoral council but he also said that it was issued through the Church's Magisterium and was to be accepted by the faithful.  To reject it is to disobey the pope, or the putative pope.  If this were not so, the SSPX wouldn't be "canonically irregular" and face the stark choice of accepting Vatican II in toto or continuing in their irregular status.  The encyclicals and other teachings issued by the post-Vatican II popes aren't just their personal opinions, either.  They're teachings issued through the Magisterium.   

So, if Pope Francis (and his predecessors) are true popes, and they teach that people have a right to religious liberty, that adulterers can be readmitted to Holy Communion, that there is a category of ecological sin (i.e. global climate change), the death penalty is bad, and so forth, the Catholic response is submission to the Supreme Pontiff and his teachings.  Do you think Pope St. Pius X would have allowed any priest (or lay Catholic) get by with some mental gymnastics to reject his teaching on the errors of Modernism?  Do you think Pope Leo XIII would have let Catholics pick and choose which parts of Rerum Novarum they'd accept and which they'd reject? 

You might object that, while St. Pius X and Leo XIII taught unquestionably orthodox doctrines, Pope Francis and his predecessors since Vatican II do not.  You'd be quite right about that.  And that's the problem.  The pope is protected by the Holy Spirit from issuing heretical teachings or giving universal laws that are intrinsically evil.  So if a Catholic man in a valid sacramental marriage leaves his wife and later enters into a civil "marriage" with another woman, and can't even get the NO marriage tribunals to give him an annulment (impressive, considering how many are approved), and then is granted some pastoral exception (or whatever they call it) to receive the Sacraments again, he should be able to trust that the successor of St. Peter isn't leading him on a path to Hell.

So, in short, yes, the R&R refuse submission to the man they recognize as the Roman Pontiff on any issue that they think the pope isn't being truly Catholic on.  And that is disobedience.  He's either the pope, fully vested by God with the authority to govern, teach, and sanctify the Church, or he's not a true pope.  If you choose the first option, you're disobeying the pope, the successor to St. Peter who cannot give heretical teachings or evil universal laws.  If the latter option, that makes the refusal to obey Francis the only sensical choice for a faithful Catholic.