Benevacantism, Etc.
(04-22-2021, 04:24 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: Sedevacantists are just as much papolators as people like Thomas Rosica and Antonio Spadaro. To the latter, if Francis were to say that 2+2=5, it would be Magisterial teaching, binding on the Faithful to accept.

Sedes have the same attitude, with the difference that they have arrogated to themselves the ability to judge the Pope. So, if Francis throws out an off the cuff opinion in a press scrum on a plane during a trip that contradicts Catholic Teaching, obviously he's trying to bind the Faithful to heresy and cannot be Pope.

The teaching of the Church is crystal clear:


Quote:[W]hen the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. (First Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Pastor Aeternus, ❡9)

Neither the position of the Rosicas and Spadaros or the sedevactntists come close to the actual definition of the Dogma of Infallibility laid down in Pastor Aeternus.
I’d like to make the point that not all Sedevacantists argue from the personal heresies of the post-V2 Popes. There are those, such as myself, who argue from the heresies and errors in Vatican II, the non-Catholic service of the New Mass, and from the later binding statements and errors of the post-conciliar church. I think this is the more reasonable position to argue from based on all you’ve said.
“Take my advice and live for a long, long time. Because the maddest thing a man can do in this life is to let himself die.” 

“When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies? Perhaps to be too practical is madness. To surrender dreams — this may be madness. Too much sanity may be madness — and maddest of all: to see life as it is, and not as it should be!” 

- Don Quixote
Reply
(04-22-2021, 06:14 PM)Marmot Wrote:
(04-22-2021, 05:42 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: I don't see it as a 'head scratcher' at all. It's quite simple. The Dogma of Infallibility is a negative charism. It prevents the Pope from teaching heresy as binding on the Faithful.Neither Francis nor any other Pope can attempt to bind the Faithful to heresy. God will simply not permit it. I'm sure that God would take steps necessary to prevent it, even death if necessary.
But it's called Papal Infallibility, not Antipapal Infallibility. There is nothing to prevent an antipope from making a phony "ex cathedra" statement.

At that point, you're not debating whether a pope can bind the faithful into error.  You're arguing over whether the See can remain vacant for decades.  It's a different debate having nothing to do with infallibility.
[-] The following 2 users Like ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident's post:
  • HailGilbert, jovan66102
Reply
(04-22-2021, 07:03 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote:
(04-22-2021, 06:14 PM)Marmot Wrote:
(04-22-2021, 05:42 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: I don't see it as a 'head scratcher' at all. It's quite simple. The Dogma of Infallibility is a negative charism. It prevents the Pope from teaching heresy as binding on the Faithful.Neither Francis nor any other Pope can attempt to bind the Faithful to heresy. God will simply not permit it. I'm sure that God would take steps necessary to prevent it, even death if necessary.
But it's called Papal Infallibility, not Antipapal Infallibility. There is nothing to prevent an antipope from making a phony "ex cathedra" statement.

At that point, you're not debating whether a pope can bind the faithful into error.  You're arguing over whether the See can remain vacant for decades.  It's a different debate having nothing to do with infallibility.

Thank you, CJAMP. It's actually begging the question. We're debating whether or not Francis is Pope and whether his immediate predecessors were, not whether an anti-Pope can make an 'ex cathedra' statement. Of course he can, but it's immaterial to the debate if Francis is indeed Pope, which I maintain he is.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 1 user Likes jovan66102's post:
  • HailGilbert
Reply
(04-22-2021, 07:03 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote: At that point, you're not debating whether a pope can bind the faithful into error.  You're arguing over whether the See can remain vacant for decades.  It's a different debate having nothing to do with infallibility.
I was answering a practical question asked by Sword. My solution to the problem involves using what we know about papal infallibility to conclude that "this man is not the Pope". I said nothing about the Holy See being "vacant for decades". The answer to the question is the same even if the Holy See would have become vacant yesterday.
Reply
(04-23-2021, 05:29 AM)Marmot Wrote:
(04-22-2021, 07:03 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote: At that point, you're not debating whether a pope can bind the faithful into error.  You're arguing over whether the See can remain vacant for decades.  It's a different debate having nothing to do with infallibility.
I was answering a practical question asked by Sword. My solution to the problem involves using what we know about papal infallibility to conclude that "this man is not the Pope". I said nothing about the Holy See being "vacant for decades". The answer to the question is the same even if the Holy See would have become vacant yesterday.

Thank you for the answer as well, I do think its related to the discussion of 'Is Pope Francis pope?'. I still hold to that. However, I posted that question as a thought. We conclude that popes are infallible when speaking ex cathedra, no? Thus if they speak ex cathedra on something, and we know it to be false, then where does that leave us. This thought is specifically pointed at Francis in the coming synods and years, such as the synod of the priesthood, this economic synod thing for health and wellness...stuff. Looking at the way Francis has acted before, promulgating ideas through footnotes, through not speaking out on them, its not much of a stretch to think that he is doing this on purpose, ie, get a large number of catholics to accept an idea such as say divorce and remarriage without annulment is a-ok now (since hey, you can receive the Eucharist thus its not mortal sin any more), to in the next few years as it is made mainstream and dissent from this idea (upholding the infalliable doctrines of the church) is squashed and people are removed who may stand against it, its not hard to think that the pope would stand up and make a statement ex cathedra that its now specifically a-ok.

Thus then that leaves us a couple options. 1) Exactly what Marmot stated and what I would hold to, this would be clear evidence that he is not a legit pope and is an anti pope. 2) If we hold he is still a legit pope and was not struck down by God, we are in a bind. Really a bind either way, for we are either judging the actions of the pope and going sede by saying he is not the pope based on XYZ, even though no one can judge the pope, we are in fact judging him to not be a pope. Or, we are in a bind by following him knowing he is wrong and leading people to mortal sin.

I pray that never get to that point, and if we do, then God woudl prevent it. However, if he is not the legit pope, then its a scenario that could realistically unfold since he then is leading as Fulton Sheen called it, the ape of the church or the anti church, and there was no specific guarantee, as Marmot stated, that the Holy Spirit will protect an Anti-Pope from speaking error while ex-cathedra.
Reply
*Unable to edit, but 'I still hold that Pope Francis is still pope.
Reply
The same process that gave us Pope St. Pius X also gave us Pope Francis. Therefore Francis is Pope. We follow him, but not into sin. He always possesses the material aspect of the Papacy (being the person elected by cardinals), and only loses the formal aspect of the Papacy (God-given authority) when he speaks contrary to Sacred Tradition and leads the faithful into sin (an almost constant occurrence).

The Chair is not empty. As far as I can tell, it is occupied by a marionette in a white cassock.
Gentle Star of ocean!
Portal of the sky!
Ever Virgin Mother
Of the Lord most High!

Shew thyself a Mother;
Offer him our sighs,
Who for us Incarnate
Did not thee despise.

Through the highest heaven,
To the Almighty Three,
Father, Son, and Spirit,
One same glory be. Amen
[-] The following 1 user Likes Lavenderson's post:
  • ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident
Reply
(04-24-2021, 04:01 AM)Lavenderson Wrote: The same process that gave us Pope St. Pius X also gave us Pope Francis. Therefore Francis is Pope. We follow him, but not into sin. He always possesses the material aspect of the Papacy (being the person elected by cardinals), and only loses the formal aspect of the Papacy (God-given authority) when he speaks contrary to Sacred Tradition and leads the faithful into sin (an almost constant occurrence).

The Chair is not empty. As far as I can tell, it is occupied by a marionette in a white cassock.
As far as I can see, this looks like a mix of the SSPX’s “two churches” theory and Sedeprivationism, which is... odd to say the least. Have you read up on what Sedeprivationism entails if formal aspect is lost? If formal aspect of the papacy is lost, then it cannot be regained until all heresy is renounced and the post-conciliar church is condemned as a false church by the pope-elect. The Pope cannot just “become” the Pope formally sometimes and other times not. No, he either is the Pope or he is not. The “two churches” theory is, with all due respect, not found anywhere in Church tradition and is absurd.
“Take my advice and live for a long, long time. Because the maddest thing a man can do in this life is to let himself die.” 

“When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies? Perhaps to be too practical is madness. To surrender dreams — this may be madness. Too much sanity may be madness — and maddest of all: to see life as it is, and not as it should be!” 

- Don Quixote
Reply
(04-26-2021, 08:35 AM)Memories_in_Rain Wrote:
(04-24-2021, 04:01 AM)Lavenderson Wrote: The same process that gave us Pope St. Pius X also gave us Pope Francis. Therefore Francis is Pope. We follow him, but not into sin. He always possesses the material aspect of the Papacy (being the person elected by cardinals), and only loses the formal aspect of the Papacy (God-given authority) when he speaks contrary to Sacred Tradition and leads the faithful into sin (an almost constant occurrence).

The Chair is not empty. As far as I can tell, it is occupied by a marionette in a white cassock.
As far as I can see, this looks like a mix of the SSPX’s “two churches” theory and Sedeprivationism, which is... odd to say the least. Have you read up on what Sedeprivationism entails if formal aspect is lost? If formal aspect of the papacy is lost, then it cannot be regained until all heresy is renounced and the post-conciliar church is condemned as a false church by the pope-elect. The Pope cannot just “become” the Pope formally sometimes and other times not. No, he either is the Pope or he is not. The “two churches” theory is, with all due respect, not found anywhere in Church tradition and is absurd.
Im open for debate on this but it is my opinion that the Pope loses the formal aspect of authority strictly when speaking against Tradition or when encouraging the faithful into sin. But if Pope Francis, with all his past modernism considered, suddenly decided to declare ex cathedra the title of Coredemptrix for our Lady, I most certainly would recognize this as the fifth marian dogma of the Faith.

But the "hes either the Pope or he isnt" mentality doesnt work in my view because it leaves the faithful with no defense against a Pope who may attempt to lead the Church off course. The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church even with corrupt leadership.


However, if a Pope could only regain formal authority after publicly backtracking on past mistakes, then (hypothetically) a perfectly sound doctrine declared prior to backtracking would not hold weight even though its consistent with Tradition and proclaimed from the Chair. I take issue with this.

I guess basically if a Pope says or does something sinful just dont follow him in that specific moment. Thats where Im at
Gentle Star of ocean!
Portal of the sky!
Ever Virgin Mother
Of the Lord most High!

Shew thyself a Mother;
Offer him our sighs,
Who for us Incarnate
Did not thee despise.

Through the highest heaven,
To the Almighty Three,
Father, Son, and Spirit,
One same glory be. Amen
Reply
(04-26-2021, 03:08 PM)Lavenderson Wrote: Im open for debate on this but it is my opinion that the Pope loses the formal aspect of authority strictly when speaking against Tradition or when encouraging the faithful into sin. But if Pope Francis, with all his past modernism considered, suddenly decided to declare ex cathedra the title of Coredemptrix for our Lady, I most certainly would recognize this as the fifth marian dogma of the Faith.

But the "hes either the Pope or he isnt" mentality doesnt work in my view because it leaves the faithful with no defense against a Pope who may attempt to lead the Church off course. The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church even with corrupt leadership.


However, if a Pope could only regain formal authority after publicly backtracking on past mistakes, then (hypothetically) a perfectly sound doctrine declared prior to backtracking would not hold weight even though its consistent with Tradition and proclaimed from the Chair. I take issue with this.

I guess basically if a Pope says or does something sinful just dont follow him in that specific moment. Thats where Im at
1. Where in tradition or Church Teaching do you find your first sentence? Any pre-VII book teaching that Popes suddenly lose formal authority when speaking against the True Faith while still being Pope? Any pre-VII teaching stating that one can just sift through a Pope’s statements and decide what you believe is against tradition and what is not, then making the decision for yourself for what to follow and what to reject? 

2. I don’t understand how the mentality of “he either is the Pope - and thus we must follow him / he is not the Pope - and thus we must reject him” leads to the Church having no defense against a corrupt Pope. Corrupt Popes who are worldly and interfere with worldly desires and pleasures are not the same as “Popes” who make heresy explicitly binding upon the faithful and who change the Catholic faith in matters of Doctrine, Discipline, and Liturgy.

3. This third paragraph is a valid reason for being uneasy with Sedeprivationism, however this is the same thing as if an antipope from the Great Western schism taught “infallibly” that, let’s say, Mary is the Coredemptrix. He is still an antipope, regardless of what he decreed. Thus when this antipope is finally kicked off the chair he never sat in to begin with, the infallible doctrine would hold no weight for the faithful until the next true Pope would most likely decree it infallibly anyway. If Francis were to assume the title of Pope and recant his past heresies and the post-Conciliar church, then the orthodox decrees of the post-conciliar “popes” (if we can find any) would still be reiterated and finally get the proper weight you speak of. 

4. A repeat of the last sentence of number 3.
“Take my advice and live for a long, long time. Because the maddest thing a man can do in this life is to let himself die.” 

“When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies? Perhaps to be too practical is madness. To surrender dreams — this may be madness. Too much sanity may be madness — and maddest of all: to see life as it is, and not as it should be!” 

- Don Quixote
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)