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.
(04-14-2021, 10:47 PM)Augustinian Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-14-2021, 10:29 PM)Evangelium Wrote: [ -> ]He also said that miracles in the Novus Ordo Church were either natural or the work of the devil.

It just seems so extreme and isolated.  That's how I came to feel when I was a sedevacantist.  I came to a point where I said to myself, "I can't do this anymore."

It's certainly a claim, I would say, from prudence. If one does not believe that the Novus Ordo is the Catholic religion, it would be best to avoid accepting the miracles that occur in that religion as true. There are miracles that are claimed in Protestantism as well as Eastern Orthodoxy, but that doesn't make the miracles or their religions true; neither do those performed by early Church enemies such as Simon Magus. The Orthodox themselves even adhere to this same prudence with their idea of "prelest".

But I can empathize with the isolation that comes with it. Extremes can definitely be off-putting, and I know that while I hold a sede position, I too find myself taken aback by some of the hardline claims made by other sedevacantists. I personally don't believe the "non una cum" controversy to be something that should prevent the reception of valid sacraments, I myself attend an SSPX chapel. I merely accept the conclusion that what has come from the Vatican since the Council is not the Catholic Faith; and that since the Pope is the rule of Faith, and these recent "popes" do not act as that rule by any means, then, they cannot possibly be true Popes. Outside of that, I don't really differ that much from any other traditional Catholic.
This is pretty much where I am. I'm fortunate enough to live in an area where within a 15 minute drive, there are SSPX, CMRI and FSSP churches. My heart wants to attend the CMRI, but I'm typically attending SSPX because it would really stress my family out for me to attend CMRI. Due to the issue regarding the NO bishops, I do not feel comfortable attending the FSSP church as I don't know with 100% certainty that the priests there are actually valid priests as they were ordained by a bishop consecrated in Paul VI's new rite.
(04-14-2021, 10:47 PM)Augustinian Wrote: [ -> ]... I merely accept the conclusion that what has come from the Vatican since the Council is not the Catholic Faith; and that since the Pope is the rule of Faith, and these recent "popes" do not act as that rule by any means, then, they cannot possibly be true Popes. Outside of that, I don't really differ that much from any other traditional Catholic.

I know this is mentioned in a previous post, but I have not been able to find it again.

The biggest thing keeping me from going full sede is the following line of thought:

1) Full sede from vatican 2 on results in, as you stated, all popes from that time on are not real popes

2) This then results in the actions of these popes being invalid as they were not actual popes.

3) Only cardinals are able to vote for the pope, and only a pope can elevate someone to be a cardinal

4) Following premise 2 and 3, no cardinals have been added to the curia since Vatican 2, roughly the end of 1965. Thus no new cardinals for just shy of 56 years.

5) This means, in a sense, that all cardinals are invalid, resulting in no possibility of a new, legit pope (the longest serving cardinal in church history died in 2012, after 40 years as a cardinal).

6) This begs the question, would God leave the church with no pope for this long and all that would entail, and with no ability to fix it, ie, at no time that I know of in history has there been a time yet that God has allowed there to be no valid means of a new pope to be picked. Even in the early church, during the apostolic times, there was still a hierarchy that was maintained and kept even when the life expectancy was extremely short. This can be seen even going back to the old testament, there was no time back before Christ that after the Levites were instituted as the priests and hierarchy, that they were all invalidated and no means of a hierarchy. The hierarchy did fall at different times in the OT, but there was always some means of the lineage maintained to keep it going. Not having any valid cardinals means that lineage is, for the first time in history, dead, with no way of restoring it outside an act of God.

7) In a sense then, the church likewise is close to death as the power to ordain comes from the bishop, and the bishop gets this from both the pope and from the apostolic succession (others can explain this better then myself i am sure, but a bishop must be involved inorder to ordain is my understanding) , if there are no valid popes for this length of time, then few bishops today are valid, and that number is getting smaller every year as the ones made a bishop before vatican 2 die off (only a handful left). After that, there will be no more valid ordinations, thus no priests. In a sense then, a church with no sacrifice being offered, no priests, and no maintained lineage going back to Christ implies that the church is indeed dead as there is no church left, unless we go to the protestant mentality that we the lay people are all that is needed to be the church.

This series of thoughts keeps me questioning the hierarchy, but unable to say definitively that for 55 years and going, we have had no valid popes, and the cascading effects that implies.
(04-15-2021, 09:05 AM)Memories_in_Rain Wrote: [ -> ]It would still be invalid if the Pope used the word “we” in the Sacrament of Baptism.
Even if by "we" he means himself alone?
(04-15-2021, 11:27 AM)Sword of St. Michael Wrote: [ -> ]5) This means, in a sense, that all cardinals are invalid, resulting in no possibility of a new, legit pope (the longest serving cardinal in church history died in 2012, after 40 years as a cardinal).
I am not a sedevacantist at all, but I've read that Cajetan taught that if all the cardinals die, an imperfect general council could elect a new pope. I can't tell if this is true or not.
(04-15-2021, 11:45 AM)Marmot Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-15-2021, 11:27 AM)Sword of St. Michael Wrote: [ -> ]5) This means, in a sense, that all cardinals are invalid, resulting in no possibility of a new, legit pope (the longest serving cardinal in church history died in 2012, after 40 years as a cardinal).
I am not a sedevacantist at all, but I've read that Cajetan taught that if all the cardinals die, an imperfect general council could elect a new pope. I can't tell if this is true or not.

That is one possibility. Another is the sedeprivationist thesis that the current Pope is materially such, and therefore is legally able to elect new Cardinals since a Cardinal is a legal appointment to begin with. Also stemming from this thesis is the possibility of a miraculous conversion of Francis, which would make him formally the Pope, as he currently sits as a "Pope elect" rather than a true Pope due to his public heresy and apostasy.
Another possibility is direct intervention by God to establish a new Pope. And finally, if these are the End Times, then the Church will eventually be led by Elias and Henoch per the interpretations of Fr. Kramer on the book of the Apocalypse.

While there may be no immediate solution, that doesn't mean pretending an arch-heretic and apostate is the Pope will fix anything either, given that the Cardinals selected by Francis will be no better than he is, and perhaps worse. Plus, its not like there aren't still valid Bishops, the laity are not all that remain of the Church
(04-15-2021, 11:27 AM)Sword of St. Michael Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-14-2021, 10:47 PM)Augustinian Wrote: [ -> ]... I merely accept the conclusion that what has come from the Vatican since the Council is not the Catholic Faith; and that since the Pope is the rule of Faith, and these recent "popes" do not act as that rule by any means, then, they cannot possibly be true Popes. Outside of that, I don't really differ that much from any other traditional Catholic.

I know this is mentioned in a previous post, but I have not been able to find it again.

The biggest thing keeping me from going full sede is the following line of thought:

1) Full sede from vatican 2 on results in, as you stated, all popes from that time on are not real popes

2) This then results in the actions of these popes being invalid as they were not actual popes.

3) Only cardinals are able to vote for the pope, and only a pope can elevate someone to be a cardinal

4) Following premise 2 and 3, no cardinals have been added to the curia since Vatican 2, roughly the end of 1965. Thus no new cardinals for just shy of 56 years.

5) This means, in a sense, that all cardinals are invalid, resulting in no possibility of a new, legit pope (the longest serving cardinal in church history died in 2012, after 40 years as a cardinal).

6) This begs the question, would God leave the church with no pope for this long and all that would entail, and with no ability to fix it, ie, at no time that I know of in history has there been a time yet that God has allowed there to be no valid means of a new pope to be picked. Even in the early church, during the apostolic times, there was still a hierarchy that was maintained and kept even when the life expectancy was extremely short. This can be seen even going back to the old testament, there was no time back before Christ that after the Levites were instituted as the priests and hierarchy, that they were all invalidated and no means of a hierarchy. The hierarchy did fall at different times in the OT, but there was always some means of the lineage maintained to keep it going. Not having any valid cardinals means that lineage is, for the first time in history, dead, with no way of restoring it outside an act of God.

7) In a sense then, the church likewise is close to death as the power to ordain comes from the bishop, and the bishop gets this from both the pope and from the apostolic succession (others can explain this better then myself i am sure, but a bishop must be involved inorder to ordain is my understanding) , if there are no valid popes for this length of time, then few bishops today are valid, and that number is getting smaller every year as the ones made a bishop before vatican 2 die off (only a handful left). After that, there will be no more valid ordinations, thus no priests. In a sense then, a church with no sacrifice being offered, no priests, and no maintained lineage going back to Christ implies that the church is indeed dead as there is no church left, unless we go to the protestant mentality that we the lay people are all that is needed to be the church.

This series of thoughts keeps me questioning the hierarchy, but unable to say definitively that for 55 years and going, we have had no valid popes, and the cascading effects that implies.
This is where Sedeprivationism should be introduced:

https://mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-c...nt-See.pdf

I think this is a perfect introductory article if you’d like to know the position.
(04-15-2021, 11:27 AM)Sword of St. Michael Wrote: [ -> ]7) In a sense then, the church likewise is close to death as the power to ordain comes from the bishop, and the bishop gets this from both the pope and from the apostolic succession (others can explain this better then myself i am sure, but a bishop must be involved inorder to ordain is my understanding)

I'm not a sede, but I don't think this is exactly correct. It is my understanding that a bishop ordains priests validly and consecrates other bishops validly by virtue of his being a bishop. He needs the Pope's permission for episcopal consecrations to be licit, but they're still valid even without. This is why schismatics have valid (but illicit) sacraments after a thousand years.
(04-15-2021, 12:24 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not a sede, but I don't think this is exactly correct.  It is my understanding that a bishop ordains priests validly and consecrates other bishops validly by virtue of his being a bishop.  He needs the Pope's permission for episcopal consecrations to be licit, but they're still valid even without.  This is why schismatics have valid (but illicit) sacraments after a thousand years.
Exactly. All bishops living today trace their episcopal lineage back to the Apostles, who all were made bishops by Christ directly, not through St. Peter.
(04-15-2021, 12:52 PM)Marmot Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-15-2021, 12:24 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not a sede, but I don't think this is exactly correct.  It is my understanding that a bishop ordains priests validly and consecrates other bishops validly by virtue of his being a bishop.  He needs the Pope's permission for episcopal consecrations to be licit, but they're still valid even without.  This is why schismatics have valid (but illicit) sacraments after a thousand years.
Exactly. All bishops living today trace their episcopal lineage back to the Apostles, who all were made bishops by Christ directly, not through St. Peter.

Very true. My understanding is that bishops are consecrated by other bishops, and that is where they get the apostolic line and power if you will of a bishop from, the fact that it comes from a passing on of the power of the apostles. The Pope though is involved in as much as approving it, and has the ability, as far as I know, to withdraw the power of a bishop. Thus, if a pope declares that another bishops ordination was illicit, then they are a bishop, but unable to use their power as a bishop. The men they consecrate then would not be licit priests.
(04-15-2021, 01:22 PM)Sword of St. Michael Wrote: [ -> ]Very true. My understanding is that bishops are consecrated by other bishops, and that is where they get the apostolic line and power if you will of a bishop from, the fact that it comes from a passing on of the power of the apostles. The Pope though is involved in as much as approving it, and has the ability, as far as I know, to withdraw the power of a bishop. Thus, if a pope declares that another bishops ordination was illicit, then they are a bishop, but unable to use their power as a bishop. The men they consecrate then would not be licit priests.
That's right, the Pope has universal power of episcopal jurisdiction and has the power of granting and withdrawing the ordinary jurisdiction of any bishop or priest.