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.
(04-03-2021, 08:49 PM)Lavenderson Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-03-2021, 06:28 PM)Evangelium Wrote: [ -> ]From the Code of Canon Law:

Quote:Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
There is no excommunication because there is no apostasy, heresy, or schism. No one here is denying the primacy or authority of the Papal Office so what is your point

Read the link I posted on the previous page.  It's long, but the author writes well.
(04-03-2021, 08:56 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-03-2021, 08:49 PM)Lavenderson Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-03-2021, 06:28 PM)Evangelium Wrote: [ -> ]From the Code of Canon Law:

Quote:Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
There is no excommunication because there is no apostasy, heresy, or schism. No one here is denying the primacy or authority of the Papal Office so what is your point

Read the link I posted on the previous page.  It's long, but the author writes well
Ok yeah I concede. Sedevacantism no bueno. Ill be a sedeprivationist only when Sacred Tradition is contradicted.
Lavenderson Wrote:
Evangelium Wrote:From the Code of Canon Law:

Quote:Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
There is no excommunication because there is no apostasy, heresy, or schism. No one here is denying the primacy or authority of the Papal Office so what is your point

Submission to the pope is what is required, not some abstract "authority of the papal office."  To refuse submission to the pope is to go into schism.  My point is that this is an extremely grave matter, a matter of spiritual life or death.  Someone in schism is excommunicated.  It is a high price to pay for succumbing to some arguments on the Internet.
I am not a sedevacantist but the argument put forth by CanonLawMadeEasy can be quickly knocked down in 5 easy steps

1 - Sedevacantists reject everything proceeding from Vatican II onwards, because they see it as deviating from the Catholic Faith

2 - CLME uses the modern code of Canon Law 1983, which sedes reject because it comes after Vatican II

3 - CLME then uses a couple of examples of "bad Popes" to illustrate that the Church has had "bad" Popes before.  However, this argument is a complete strawman because sedevacantists do not reject the Pope for personal moral failings but because they profess the anti-Pope is beholding to a heresy, and a heretic cannot be a Pope as he ipso facto loses his Office.  Id est, you cannot be in the Church and yet outside the Church and be the head of the Church...the law of non-contradiction.

4 - CLME argues that sedes are schismatic because they do not adhere to Church governance. which is true if you see the current Church as legitimate.  However, if you profess that because the Church governance is beholden to Vatican II which contains heresies, then they are not valid princes.  Just like how Anglicans priests of the first generation but any successor was not valid for Anglican Rites are invalid, sedes assert the same.  Sedes assert that the Ordination of the New Rite which was proclaimed by Pope Paul VI was invalid, since it was invalid then that makes NO priests invalid...now the Church continues since there are priests and bishops being ordained in the Traditional Rite (SSPX, not just sede).  So if the Pope is beholden to a heresy and many of the bishops are invalid for being ordained by an invalid rite, how can a sede be in schism?  Catholics are not guilty of schism for not being in communion with Anglicans, Lutherans, Waldesians, etc.

5 - Schism has generally come to mean rejection of Papal Supremacy and thus schism is applied to Eastern Orthodox.  It can be applied to sedevacantists, but if one looks pre-conciliar then it wouldn't be difficult to assert that the NO is the schismatic (that is of course if you believe in the validity of the NO Sacraments).  To give an example, currently there is a Cardinal that is talking about Anglican re-unification and is stating boldly that Pope Leo XIII's papal bull declaring Anglican orders invalid is not true.  He's saying that because of the ecumenical actions of Pope Francis, that they are close to being fully reconciled but the major stumbling block is really Anglican female ordinations which they say they cannot really get over because of Pope John Paul II.  So we have schism occuring within the Vatican itself.  With Cardinals being disobedient to the authority of a long dead Pope, but being obedient to a recently dead one...wonder if the Cardinal's successor will be obedient to Pope John Paul II, or treat his words condemning female ordinations in the same manner this Cardinal treated Pope Leo XIII...after all aggriomento!  To sum up this long point: the utter confusion in the Vatican is not a sign of Apostolic and spiritual unity when older councils and Papal declarations are tossed in the trash for the sake of ecumenism.  While sedes could very well be wrong, they at least hold to the Teachings of the Catholic Church which did not leave anything open to interpretation and was not so ambiguous as to contradict herself.



Again, I am not a sedevacantist but this issue really is far more complex than the drive-by Catholic wishes to make it seem.  It's also far more deserving of attention than pagan heathens in the Amazons, the environment, or female Protestant co-celebratory liturgies.
(04-03-2021, 10:38 PM)Evangelium Wrote: [ -> ]
Lavenderson Wrote:
Evangelium Wrote:From the Code of Canon Law:

Quote:Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
There is no excommunication because there is no apostasy, heresy, or schism. No one here is denying the primacy or authority of the Papal Office so what is your point

Submission to the pope is what is required, not some abstract "authority of the papal office."  To refuse submission to the pope is to go into schism.  My point is that this is an extremely grave matter, a matter of spiritual life or death.  Someone in schism is excommunicated.  It is a high price to pay for succumbing to some arguments on the Internet.
What you seem to be ignoring is that you pay an equally high price of spiritual death by submitting to doctrines contrary to Tradition coming from the same Papal Office. Pope Francis exercises formal authority when he speaks in accordance to Tradition. If he contradicts Tradition, the Chair is still occupied, but by a corpse in a white cassock rather than the living Vicar of Christ.
St. Peter denied Christ three times and St. Paul resisted him to his face when he was in the wrong.  Yet there is no dispute that he was our first pope.  There have been other popes who taught errors.  Still popes.

It is a novel teaching that the pope disappears whenever he says something problematic,  I don't accept it.
(04-03-2021, 10:41 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]2 - CLME uses the modern code of Canon Law 1983, which sedes reject because it comes after Vatican II

I went looking for the text of the 1917 code and found this nugget on the Sedevacantism wikipedia page...

Quote:Critics of sedevacantism argue this also means that the theory advanced by the seventeenth-century theologian and Doctor of the Church Robert Bellarmine that a pope who fell into heresy would automatically forfeit his office and could be formally deposed has been overruled by Church authority by Benedict XIV in "De Synodo Dioecesana" (10,1,5) and by the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Can. 2232, Par. 1, "A penalty that is latae sententiae, whether medicinal or punitive, holds for one who is aware of his own delict in both fora [i.e., public and private]; but prior to a declaratory sentence, the delinquent is excused from observing the penalty any time that he cannot observe it without infamy, and in the external forum no one can compel the observance of that penalty from him unless the delict is notorious, with due regard for Can. 2223, Par. 4." Sedevacantist appeals to Bellarmine's authority in this point accordingly could not be sustained, adding that Bellarmine envisaged that such a deposition, even if possible, could only be undertaken by a significant body of the Church including many bishops and cardinals, rather than by a few individuals.
(04-03-2021, 11:08 PM)Evangelium Wrote: [ -> ]St. Peter denied Christ three times and St. Paul resisted him to his face when he was in the wrong.  Yet there is no dispute that he was our first pope.  There have been other popes who taught errors.  Still popes.

It is a novel teaching that the pope disappears whenever he says something problematic,  I don't accept it.
As long as you dont preach to blindly follow whoevers sitting in the Chair just because the are sitting the Chair. Because if heresy comes out of the Vatican, it is just as grave of a matter to submit. You dont submit to a Vicar of Christ who contradicts Christ.
(04-03-2021, 11:08 PM)Evangelium Wrote: [ -> ]St. Peter denied Christ three times and St. Paul resisted him to his face when he was in the wrong.  Yet there is no dispute that he was our first pope.  There have been other popes who taught errors.  Still popes.

It is a novel teaching that the pope disappears whenever he says something problematic,  I don't accept it.

St Peter's pontificate was not in effect at that time.  St Peter did not officially become the first Pope until the last chapter of John "feed My sheep."  At this point Saint Peter had already repented and was forgiven. 

Also Saint Peter's denial was a failure of moral conduct and not of his public and official teaching, and he did so out of intense fear.  Saint Peter did not deny the faith per se but denied being acquainted with Jesus of Nazareth, completely different.

Also St Paul correcting St Peter was not because St Peter had taught error, but his conduct was wrong.

No Pope has bound the faithful to an error, to submit to that is to believe that is to in-fact be a heretic.


No sede believes what you accuse.



On that note this thread is spiraling out of control


The question was concerning sedevacantists and Donatism.  Either answer the question or any future comments regarding schism, should be posted to the approved thread for this topic: "Benevacantism etc."
Bumping this thread since there has been discussion about Sedevacantism and Schism on this thread Is Sedevacantism Donatist?.