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.
Here is the link Benevacantism, Etc.
(04-03-2021, 11:50 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]Here is the link Benevacantism, Etc.

It should have been in that subforum to begin with. I think Vox should move it there.
(04-03-2021, 11:44 PM)Lavenderson Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

You don't submit to an errant teaching, and that's a different thing from rejecting the man who issued it.  Whether than man is still Pope (or ever was) is way above your pay grade.
(04-03-2021, 11:44 PM)Lavenderson Wrote: [ -> ]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.
Should Eastern Orthodox submit to the Catholic Church headed by Pope Francis?
(04-04-2021, 03:10 AM)AlNg777 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-03-2021, 11:44 PM)Lavenderson Wrote: [ -> ]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.
Should Eastern Orthodox submit to the Catholic Church headed by Pope Francis?

Of course they should submit and reenter the Church of Christ from which they've been separated for centuries.
(04-03-2021, 11:57 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote: [ -> ]You don't submit to an errant teaching, and that's a different thing from rejecting the man who issued it.  Whether than man is still Pope (or ever was) is way above your pay grade.

Well, I said I wasn't interested in discussing any of this again but there is an angle that I'd like to explore a bit, so I'll hop in for a bit.  What constitutes "rejecting the man who issued it?"  Let's consider Canon 751 and my particular situation.  I'm not concerned about sedevacantism in general.  This Canon says that schism is "refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or refusal of communion with members of the Church subject to him."  Do I refuse communion with other Catholics?  I went to Easter Mass this morning at my local NO parish.  It wasn't a TLM.  I can no longer make the trip to my SSPX chapel.  I'll be receiving the Sacraments from the local NO clergy now.  Am I refusing communion with the wider Church?  Hardly seems to apply to me. 

Now, the first part of schism: do I refuse submission to the Supreme Pontiff?  I believe that Francis is pope, though I accept the distinction of material/formal and do not think he is in full possession of papal authority at this time.  I accept his authority to designate cardinals, appoint bishops over dioceses, even to establish canon law (insofar as it does not contradict divine law), etc.  How then, by thinking his possession of full papal authority is impeded, am I refusing submission to him?  It might, maybe, be above my pay grade to make even that distinction but my question is about whether or not that I should think it constitutes refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff?
Have you considered consulting your SSPX priest about this question?  I would urge you to talk to him and heed his advice.
(04-04-2021, 12:58 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]Well, I said I wasn't interested in discussing any of this again but there is an angle that I'd like to explore a bit, so I'll hop in for a bit.  What constitutes "rejecting the man who issued it?"  Let's consider Canon 751 and my particular situation.  I'm not concerned about sedevacantism in general.  This Canon says that schism is "refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or refusal of communion with members of the Church subject to him."  Do I refuse communion with other Catholics?  I went to Easter Mass this morning at my local NO parish.  It wasn't a TLM.  I can no longer make the trip to my SSPX chapel.  I'll be receiving the Sacraments from the local NO clergy now.  Am I refusing communion with the wider Church?  Hardly seems to apply to me. 

Now, the first part of schism: do I refuse submission to the Supreme Pontiff?  I believe that Francis is pope, though I accept the distinction of material/formal and do not think he is in full possession of papal authority at this time.  I accept his authority to designate cardinals, appoint bishops over dioceses, even to establish canon law (insofar as it does not contradict divine law), etc.  How then, by thinking his possession of full papal authority is impeded, am I refusing submission to him?  It might, maybe, be above my pay grade to make even that distinction but my question is about whether or not that I should think it constitutes refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff?

The fact that you struggle in a gray area would suggest to me that it doesn't apply to you. I imagine it applies more to CMRI, "independent Catholic" chapels, SSPV, those types--people who don't hesitate to call him an antipope.

The bolded part of your response is the only concerning part. The idea that the papacy can be split is a novelty. Are you a modernist?

(That last sentence was an attempt at humor. Happy Easter.)
(04-04-2021, 04:09 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote: [ -> ]The fact that you struggle in a gray area would suggest to me that it doesn't apply to you.  I imagine it applies more to CMRI, "independent Catholic" chapels, SSPV, those types--people who don't hesitate to call him an antipope.

The bolded part of your response is the only concerning part.  The idea that the papacy can be split is a novelty.  Are you a modernist?

(That last sentence was an attempt at humor.  Happy Easter.)

Hahaha....then Benedict is a Modernist Sedevacantist since he's talked about splitting the Papacy.

However distinguishing between material and formal in regards to episcopal jurisdiction is not as modernist as you might suspect. Especially since these distinctions are very common in Classical and Thomistic thought that the Church has adopted. Heresy is heresy, but there is a distinction between formal and material. Not saying that this distinction isn't in error, just saying that to use the distinction of material and formal is not alien to Catholic thought.
(04-04-2021, 03:40 PM)Evangelium Wrote: [ -> ]Have you considered consulting your SSPX priest about this question?  I would urge you to talk to him and heed his advice.

I am no longer in a position to travel to the SSPX chapel.  It is an hour and a half from my home.  My car now barely runs.  I'm able to use the junker to get around my small town.  Additionally, I have chronic health problems that are currently flaring up rather badly, and even if I had a reliable car, the long trip would be a little experience in Hell.  IOW, while I'd love to sit down with Father and have a discussion, that's not happening anytime soon.

(04-04-2021, 04:09 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote: [ -> ]The bolded part of your response is the only concerning part.  The idea that the papacy can be split is a novelty.  Are you a modernist?

(That last sentence was an attempt at humor.  Happy Easter.)

The joke is well received on my end.  Anyway, I'll admit the position is novel but, as austenbosten has mentioned, it isn't without some basis in traditional Catholic thought.  Aside from that, as far as I can tell, all the responses to this crisis must involve some novelty.  The idea of recognizing and resisting pope after pope, over several decades, did not exist until this crisis.  So, too, I think the conservative NO Catholics and their hermeneutic of reform in continuity: invented solely to try and explain the changes in teaching and discipline since the time of Vatican II.  We can debate which is actually the right way until we're blue in the face but I think this thread is ample evidence that we'll arrive at no mutually agreed upon resolution.  Happy Easter to you, too.