Sedevacantism
#1
I am brand new to the thread and I hope  this is an OK question to ask. I go to Mount Saint Michaels church in Spokane Washington. I was just wondering what people on this forum think about  the sedevacantist position? I’m  not trying to start an argument I’m just curious. I just wondered how people could think that Francis is a true pope with the things that he is done. Please give me your opinions thank you!
Reply
#2
(11-11-2019, 01:25 AM)Tradinight Wrote: I am brand new to the thread and I hope  this is an OK question to ask. I go to Mount Saint Michaels church in Spokane Washington. I was just wondering what people on this forum think about  the sedevacantist position? I’m  not trying to start an argument I’m just curious. I just wondered how people could think that Francis is a true pope with the things that he is done. Please give me your opinions thank you!

This forum is one that accepts in principle that Francis is the Pope, and it's part of the rules here that posts here have this underlying assumption, so the official "policy" of the forum is not sedevacantist.

Perhaps some here hold that view.

Since the consensus of all traditional theologians is that the man who is universally and peacefully recognized as the Pope must infallibly be the Pope, and since we cannot judge the crime of heresy or apostasy, lacking authority to do so, the only logical position is to hold that Francis is Pope.

If Cajetan or St Robert Bellarmine are correct, if Francis has committed the crime of heresy, then the Church Herself, through some imperfect Council or similar group could declared the crime of heresy or apostasy, and Christ would depose this person, or the Church would declare Francis as someone to be avoided, and thus effectively there would be a universal schism from him, making his headship of the Church impossible, and thus Christ would depose him.

Since that's not happened, unfortunately, he's the Pope.

While I don't like the ad hominems in the book, which I think spoil it, the theological sources and general argumentation of True of False Pope by John Salza is worth reading if you want more insight on these theologians.

EDITED TO ADD : Appreciating that there's not a clear place to put this question, "Secular News, Politics, & Social Issues" doesn't seem to be the right place, so I'm notifying a moderator who might decide to move this to another subforum which matches the discussion topic better.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • JacafamalaRedux, meandmyshadow
Reply
#3
I get where Sedevacantists are coming from, I really do. However the position is not logically or theologically tenable. In the first place Vatican 1 dogmatically defined that there would be perpetual successors in the papacy until the end of time. If John XXIII on were anti-popes, you have a really serious problem...who's going to elect the next "real" pope? There are no cardinals remaining from the time of Pope Pius XII, so you really do have an insurmountable issue there. Sedevanctism for this reason alone amounts to a heretical position, because it in practice denies a defined dogma of Vatican 1.

Ultimately Sedevacantism and Novus Ordo Papalism share the same basic theological error: the idea that a Pope is somehow immune from being able, as a human being with free will, to teach error outside of the stringent conditions defined by Vatican 1 regarding the dogma of infallibility. It is just a false premise, and it is really the premise upon which Sedevacantism exists. No conciliar Pope has invoked the extraordinary magisterium to define anything heretical whatsoever. The only time it was invoked was by John Paul 2 when he explicity declared that the Church can never ordain women. And that's true! Outside of that extraordinary magisterium there is no defined doctrine that says a Pope cannot err.

The way I see it, Sedevacantism is the easy way out. Instead of recognizing that we ultimately have to bear the cross of a mass apostasy under the leadership of (materially) heretical Popes, Sedevacantists avoid this cross by simply assuming they can't be real Popes. That's all Sedevanctism is at the end of the day, an intellectual aversion to the cross that this crisis is.

I've been looking at this crisis in depth since I came back to the Catholic faith, and I've found that the SSPX most certainly holds the correct analysis and the correct position. The Pope is the Pope, the hierarchy is the hierarchy, and the heresy of modernism is running rampant through them all. This is a crisis, a cross, and in my view a divine chastisement for sin. All we can do is keep the faith, recognize, and resist. Archbishop Lefebvre recognized the problem and took the absolutely correct approach.

For a more detailed analysis of the errors of Sedevacantism check out this talk by John Salza, he really puts the nail in the coffin of that position.

[-] The following 3 users Like 1Faith's post:
  • antiquarian, meandmyshadow, ServusDei
Reply
#4
First off, thanks for the reply! I am not the best one to argue the case, but when I talk to priests ect at my parish, the basically say since Vatican 2 the popes fell into heresy because of the changes they made, and they say it’s so obvious they do not understand how somebody can be a traditionalist and still recognize Francis. For example, what about that whole incident with the amazon Indians, a real pope would never do that, how do you respond?
Reply
#5
(11-11-2019, 01:55 AM)P1Faith Wrote: I get where Sedevacantists are coming from, I really do. However the position is not logically or theologically tenable. In the first place Vatican 1 dogmatically defined that there would be perpetual successors in the papacy until the end of time. If John XXIII on were anti-popes, you have a really serious problem...who's going to elect the next "real" pope? There are no cardinals remaining from the time of Pope Pius XII, so you really do have an insurmountable issue there. Sedevanctism for this reason alone amounts to a heretical position, because it in practice denies a defined dogma of Vatican 1.

Ultimately Sedevacantism and Novus Ordo Papalism share the same basic theological error: the idea that a Pope is somehow immune from being able, as a human being with free will, to teach error outside of the stringent conditions defined by Vatican 1 regarding the dogma of infallibility. It is just a false premise, and it is really the premise upon which Sedevacantism exists. No conciliar Pope has invoked the extraordinary magisterium to define anything heretical whatsoever. The only time it was invoked was by John Paul 2 when he explicity declared that the Church can never ordain women. And that's true! Outside of that extraordinary magisterium there is no defined doctrine that says a Pope cannot err.

The way I see it, Sedevacantism is the easy way out. Instead of recognizing that we ultimately have to bear the cross of a mass apostasy under the leadership of (materially) heretical Popes, Sedevacantists avoid this cross by simply assuming they can't be real Popes. That's all Sedevanctism is at the end of the day, an intellectual aversion to the cross that this crisis is.

I've been looking at this crisis in depth since I came back to the Catholic faith, and I've found that the SSPX most certainly holds the correct analysis and the correct position. The Pope is the Pope, the hierarchy is the hierarchy, and the heresy of modernism is running rampant through them all. This is a crisis, a cross, and in my view a divine chastisement for sin. All we can do is keep the faith, recognize, and resist. Archbishop Lefebvre recognized the problem and took the absolutely correct approach.

For a more detailed analysis of the errors of Sedevacantism check out this talk by John Salza, he really puts the nail in the coffin of that position.

Reply
#6
Quote:For example, what about that whole incident with the amazon Indians, a real pope would never do that, how do you respond?
That's like saying a Pope can't mortally sin. Alexander VI had children as Pope. He sinned gravely against the 6th commandment. Francis committed blatant idolatry. He sinned gravely against the 1st commandment.

There is no doctrine of the impeccability of the Pope. The Pope is the chief Pastor of CHRIST'S Church. The Church belongs to Christ, not to the Pope. CHRIST is the head of the Church, the Pope is his vicar. If the vicar defies his boss and teaches error, we simply don't follow him. His boss will judge him when the time comes, we simply reject his errors and heresies and pray for him.
[-] The following 3 users Like 1Faith's post:
  • antiquarian, Fionnchu, jovan66102
Reply
#7
You mentioned SSPX, I asked other sedevacantist about them and They say they have valid sacraments and that we could go to them. However, they say they are tight rope walkers. They officially recognize Francis is pope, but correctly do not follow his false teachings. This is inconsistent. If he is a true pope, they would have to obey all of his teachings. How would you respond?
Reply
#8
(11-11-2019, 02:01 AM)1Faith Wrote:
Quote:For example, what about that whole incident with the amazon Indians, a real pope would never do that, how do you respond?
That's like saying a Pope can't mortally sin. Alexander VI had children as Pope. He sinned gravely against the 6th commandment. Francis committed blatant idolatry. He sinned gravely against the 1st commandment.

There is no doctrine of the impeccability of the Pope. The Pope is the chief Pastor of CHRIST'S Church. The Church belongs to Christ, not to the Pope. CHRIST is the head of the Church, the Pope is his  vicar. If the vicar defies his boss and teaches error, we simply don't follow him. His boss will judge him when the time comes, we simply reject his errors and heresies and pray for him.
Reply
#9
Quote:This is inconsistent. If he is a true pope, they would have to obey all of his teachings. How would you respond?
I would respond by saying your statement is wrong. Its that simple. We assent to extraordinary magisterium, defined by Vatican 1. We also assent to ordinary universal magisterium, namely what has been believed "always, everywhere and by all". If a Pope comes around proclaiming new doctrines and theological novelties without basis in tradition, like the conciliar Popes have, they are wrong and we simply don't follow them. New doctrines constitute neither extraordinary or ordinary magisterium.
[-] The following 2 users Like 1Faith's post:
  • Augustinian, jovan66102
Reply
#10
(11-11-2019, 02:03 AM)Tradinight Wrote: You mentioned SSPX, I asked other sedevacantist about them and They say they have valid sacraments and that we could go to them. However, they say they are tight rope walkers.  They officially recognize Francis is pope,  but correctly do not follow his false teachings. This is inconsistent. If he is a true pope, they would have to obey all of his teachings. How would you respond?

They misunderstand the nature of obedience to the pope and to which teaching we must "obey."  The charism of infallibility is a negative charism. This is essential to remember. It is not some positive thing that the Pope possesses, but a protection for the Church that under the extremely limited conditions in which he is attempting to bind the whole Church to profess a doctrine or point of morality as revealed, he cannot bind them to error.

That's all.

So, the man who is Pope can become a heretic or apostate, lose the Faith, but because this has not be judged still remain in the role, and while in that role the Holy Ghost will protect him from teaching as Revealed Dogma, something which is false.

It does not stop him from publicly acting as an apostate, or even making his own personal teaching which are heretical or apostate. We have example of Popes doing the latter, and even a kind of fraternal correction, but never a deposition or recognition of a deposition.

John XXII, for instance, even after being condemned by the Parisian theological faculty for his heresy on the Beatific Vision, remained Pope. Infallibility protected him from binding the faithful to his errors. 

In short, Infallibility does not make the Pope right. It protect the Pope from binding the faithful to profess something which is erroneous as being of the Faith.

The Authentic (i.e. "authoritative") Magisterium of the Church -- i.e., the teaching office of the Church exercised by proper authority -- has different levels of infallibility:

Extraordinary Infallible Magisterium ("Solemn Magisterium"): this is exercised when the Pope, as supreme pastor of the entire Church, speaks ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) and solemnly defines a dogma concerning faith and morals to be held by the entire Church, or when a Dogmatic Council convened and endorsed by a Pope formally defines a matter of faith and morals to be held by the entire Church. This is a very rarely excercised assertion of authority (only a few times in the past few hundred years). When the Pope teaches using his extraordinary infallible Magisterium, or when a Council dogmatically defines something and the Pope endorses that defintion, Catholics must believe what is taught de fide, as an article of faith.  

Ordinary Infallible Magisterium ("Constant Magisterium" or "Universal Magisterium"): this is exercised when the Pope, Council, Bishop, priest or any authorized teacher teaches in accordance with Tradition, the Sacred Deposit of Faith, and what has been always accepted and taught by the Church in the past. 

Merely Authentic Ordinary Magisterium: any teaching by Pope, Bishop, priest, or any authorized teacher, that does not fall into the above two levels of infallibility is, quite simply, fallible, even though it may be part of the Authentic Magisterium (that is, it is "authorized" teaching). Teaching at this level is owed obedience -- as long as obeying does not harm the Faith, lead to sin or the loss of souls, does not contradict the Faith, etc. If what is being taught contradicts the Faith, it not only can be resisted, it must be resisted.

EDIT: Yes these are all my words and ideas that I wrote for the first time just now. Why do you ask?
[-] The following 3 users Like Imperator Caesar Trump's post:
  • 1Faith, Fionnchu, jovan66102
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)