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.
Quote:Sounds very legalistic to me. And it doesn’t explain the acceptance of the whole Catholic world (this nonsense didn’t pick up any steam until well into Francis’ reign), including Benedict (who would have to be a liar in this scenario, and also guilty of enabling what Francis has done as pope to cause scandal).



B16 a liar? Maybe not. If by not resigning from the "munus" means he's still papa. Then that leaves Bergoglio as Bishop of Rome. As Marshal points out in the video, St. Peter was head of the Church at Pentecost, and the occured in Jerusalem, not Rome. Which means "Bishop of Rome" isn't essential to the office of papacy.

Who knows? Could be. There's got to be some way out of this mess if the gates of Hell are really not going to prevail...
(03-19-2019, 03:44 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]From One Peter Five

Dogmatic Fact: The One Doctrine that Proves Francis Is Pope


Quote:[W]e have only to ask ourselves in reference to any particular Pope — either the living Pope whom we are called upon to obey, or some past Pope in whom we are historically interested — whether the true Church adheres or adhered to him, or not, and then we can be sure at once, independently of all detailed historical investigations, whether the title by which he entered upon the See of Peter was valid or not.

Is the true Church adhering to our Pontiff though? It's hard to really know what that even means at this time.
(05-28-2020, 10:30 AM)JacafamalaRedux Wrote: [ -> ]Is the true Church adhering to our Pontiff though? It's hard to really know what that even means at this time.

Yes, the true Church is adhering to Pope Francis.  The Church is both visible and invisible.  Unlike the Protestant sects, we as Catholics know there must be the visible part of the Church.  We see that in the bishops in communion with Pope Francis (and no one else).  We have no rival claimants to the Papacy.  Except for the relatively small number of Sedevacantists and Benevacantists, the entire visible Church accepts Francis as Pope.  If the Church is no longer visible so that we can determine whether or not it accepts Francis as Pope, then the Catholic Church is no more and Our Lord was wrong to say the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church.

This is my biggest problem with Benevacantism (and Sedevacantism).  The theories proposed must, in order to work, gut traditional Catholic doctrines like the universal acceptance of the Pope and the visibility of the Church.  The cure is worse than the disease, in such a case.
(05-28-2020, 10:30 AM)JacafamalaRedux Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:[W]e have only to ask ourselves in reference to any particular Pope — either the living Pope whom we are called upon to obey, or some past Pope in whom we are historically interested — whether the true Church adheres or adhered to him, or not, and then we can be sure at once, independently of all detailed historical investigations, whether the title by which he entered upon the See of Peter was valid or not.

Is the true Church adhering to our Pontiff though? It's hard to really know what that even means at this time.

To add: Siscoe continues:

Quote:Fr. Smith went on to explain that because the Church is an indefectible visible society, it can never adhere to a false head. There’s no need to study canon law, or spend years researching ancient Latin texts buried away in archives, to be absolutely certain that a particular pope was (or is) the true pope. All that is required to ascertain his legitimacy is to find out if he was recognized as pope by the Church. If the answer is yes, that alone provides infallible certitude of his legitimacy, as well a corresponding degree of certitude that all the conditions required for him to have become popes were satisfied — such as the condition that the papal office was vacant at the time. And the certitude of the pope’s legitimacy occurs the moment the entire Church learns of his election, provided it is not at once contested.

So...are we going to ignore the 39 years of the Great Western Schism?  Or the Arian crisis of the 4th-century that saw much of the "visible" Church in the hands of heretics.
(05-28-2020, 11:23 AM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]This is my biggest problem with Benevacantism (and Sedevacantism).  The theories proposed must, in order to work, gut traditional Catholic doctrines like the universal acceptance of the Pope and the visibility of the Church.  The cure is worse than the disease, in such a case.

My problem with R&R is that they resort to making all men theologians (in the vein of Martin Luther) where one must accept Vatican II and the conciliar Popes, but they are free to pick and choose what they want to acknowledge and reject. It's where liberal NO criticise the Trad R&R of being "council-encyclical Protestants" due to their rejection of later encyclical documents from the conciliar popes like Amoris Latitae and Laudato Si.

Both sedevacantism and R&R have problems and ironically both are always casting stones on one another.
(05-28-2020, 11:37 AM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]To add: Siscoe continues:

Quote:Fr. Smith went on to explain that because the Church is an indefectible visible society, it can never adhere to a false head. There’s no need to study canon law, or spend years researching ancient Latin texts buried away in archives, to be absolutely certain that a particular pope was (or is) the true pope. All that is required to ascertain his legitimacy is to find out if he was recognized as pope by the Church. If the answer is yes, that alone provides infallible certitude of his legitimacy, as well a corresponding degree of certitude that all the conditions required for him to have become popes were satisfied — such as the condition that the papal office was vacant at the time. And the certitude of the pope’s legitimacy occurs the moment the entire Church learns of his election, provided it is not at once contested.

So...are we going to ignore the 39 years of the Great Western Schism?  Or the Arian crisis of the 4th-century that saw much of the "visible" Church in the hands of heretics.

Interesting.  A thought occurred to me just moments ago.  I think I can see a possible flaw in my own reasoning.  If the visible Church constitutes those who are in communion with the Pope, then if we have a situation like the Great Western Schism, how do we know which visible body of Christians is the Catholic Church, and which is adhering to an antipope?
(05-28-2020, 11:40 AM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]My problem with R&R is that they resort to making all men theologians (in the vein of Martin Luther) where one must accept Vatican II and the conciliar Popes, but they are free to pick and choose what they want to acknowledge and reject.  It's where liberal NO criticise the Trad R&R of being "council-encyclical Protestants" due to their rejection of later encyclical documents from the conciliar popes like Amoris Latitae and Laudato Si.

Both sedevacantism and R&R have problems and ironically both are always casting stones on one another.

I share this concern as well.  There are problems with each of the positions offered for our present crisis.  I really haven't a clue as to how to resolve any of them, though I refuse cast stones at Sedevacantists, Benevacantist, R&R, etc.  I think we're all doing the best we can, with the limited information and abilities we all possess.
(05-28-2020, 11:37 AM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]So...are we going to ignore the 39 years of the Great Western Schism?  Or the Arian crisis of the 4th-century that saw much of the "visible" Church in the hands of heretics.

Neither of those situations are really comparable to the present one with regard to the matter at hand. Siscoe's whole point in the quote you made hinges on the papacy not being contested which obviously was not the case in the Great Western Schism, and nobody says that Liberius was an antipope. Even Honorius, who was posthumously condemned for not taking a firm stand against heresy (I'd say the closest historical parallel to Francis), was still Pope.
(05-28-2020, 11:40 AM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]My problem with R&R is that they resort to making all men theologians (in the vein of Martin Luther) where one must accept Vatican II and the conciliar Popes, but they are free to pick and choose what they want to acknowledge and reject.
 But wouldn't sedes do the same by picking and choosing at what point the papacy was lost because that's the point where they started disagreeing with the theology?
At any rate, I'd have to say that I agree with Joe T.  We're not in a situation like the Great Western Schism, so I can see no reason to doubt that the Church has given her acceptance of Francis as Pope.