Sedevacantism
#21
(11-11-2019, 02:30 AM)Tradinight Wrote: Then why doesn’t “pope” francis reverse the false teachings of Vatican two? Look at the church and society, why would a real pope allow this to continue?also, I was taught that when they changed the words in the consecration from many too all, that made it invalid.

First on the consecration, that's not what St Thomas Aquinas would say. He says that the absolutely essential words are "This is the chalice of my Blood". Further, that was only done in some vernacular versions of the Mass. It was not done in the Latin official edition, and some vernacular translations kept a faithful translation. And no Pope ordered this change, so it's hard to pin that on the Popes.

Pope Francis likes the errors of Vatican II. That does not make him a non-Pope, any more than being a bad father makes a man no longer a father to his children.

Just because a Pope does evil (e.g. John XXII) does not make him a anti-Pope.

Plus, who would have the authority to make the call whether he is doing good enough to be Pope or not? Like was pointed out, Canon Law says we do not have the authority to make these judgements since "The First See [i.e. the Pope] is judged by no one".
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • HailGilbert, jovan66102
Reply
#22
I was a Sedevacantist(material/formal variety) for a number of years up until recently.  I returned to the Church, making my General Confession just two days ago.  



-To people who have never been Sedevacantist 


Sedevacantist generally don't think that Popes are impeccable, they see various statements and actions of Popes Paul VI to Francis as formally heretical(people tend to add Pope John XXIII as an after the fact sort of thing), and have trouble squaring up the Second Vatican Council to the teachings of the previous Popes(particularly Pope Gregory XVI to Pope Pius XII).  

Appeals to the Pope not always being infallible misses the point.  They see him as a formal heretic(not as clear cut as many sedevacantist make it out to be)forfeiting his membership in the Church, and no longer being part of the body, can no longer be the head.



-To the OP

The main problem I ended up having with the position was that it didn't address the problem of the Church's Visibility. 

Yes, some theologians thought the See of Rome could have a long interregnum(I think it was Van Noort, my memory is horrible).  But the problem isn't just that Rome is vacant, it's that the Church in this situation wouldn't have a single bishop with ordinary jurisdiction(it's worth noting sacramental validity is not identical with Apostolic Succession, Ordinary Jurisdiction is an essential part of that). 

Even with Sedeprivationism, which attempts to address this problem, saying the Pope is still (but only)materially the Pope and can legally designate electors and appoint bishops, has the problem of having All the Bishops with Jurisdiction would be imposing error, while the only true catholic Bishops would be vagrant bishops working off supplied jurisdiction.  This is essentially saying that the Church has defected.  

Salza can come off as annoying in "True or False Pope", but it's definitely worth the read.  

Here are the first 2 chapters:
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/true-or...s-1-2.html
My word choices are based on sound, not meaning.

Yes, that defeats the purpose of language.
[-] The following 3 users Like MacPasquale's post:
  • Fionnchu, Imperator Caesar Trump, MagisterMusicae
Reply
#23
(11-11-2019, 03:09 AM)MacPasquale Wrote: I was a Sedevacantist(material/formal variety) for a number of years up until recently.  I returned to the Church, making my General Confession just two days ago.  



-To people who have never been Sedevacantist 


Sedevacantist generally don't think that Popes are impeccable, they see various statements and actions of Popes Paul VI to Francis as formally heretical(people tend to add Pope John XXIII as an after the fact sort of thing), and have trouble squaring up the Second Vatican Council to the teachings of the previous Popes(particularly Pope Gregory XVI to Pope Pius XII).  

Appeals to the Pope not always being infallible misses the point.  They see him as a formal heretic(not as clear cut as many sedevacantist make it out to be)forfeiting his membership in the Church, and no longer being part of the body, can no longer be the head.

As I see it, sedevacantism always turns on papal impeccability.  The notion of sedevacantism implies that by a specific mortal sin the Pope kicks himself out of the office or proves he was never in the office.  In order to have an approximate 2000 year history free of this situation, just up until the last 75 years, a supernatural protection would have to be placed upon the office against at least this specific mortal sin, if not all mortal sin.  Otherwise, you could have a Pope who never professes a heresy, but holds it obstinately in private and no one is the wiser...except there's no Pope.  Talk about a lack of visibility when you think of this mess in the light of the old adage "where Peter is, there is the Church."

If a person maintains the rule of the true faith he will not be fooled by the glamour of such propositions.

There's no promise of Christ that the Pope will not be Satan incarnate just as there is no promise that he will not be an heretic or apostate.
Reply
#24
(11-11-2019, 03:09 AM)MacPasquale Wrote: Appeals to the Pope not always being infallible misses the point.  They see him as a formal heretic(not as clear cut as many sedevacantist make it out to be)forfeiting his membership in the Church, and no longer being part of the body, can no longer be the head.

I would say it somewhat depends. For some of the not-so-educated SVs they do have an Ultramontaine Pius XII-influenced view of the papacy, and I've run into a few that, while they did not think the Pope impeccable, they did think he could not teach something heretical or in error. I find this an inadequate reply, but at least a first step towards an holistic response. At least it sees whether we're dealing with someone who is well-educated theologically or has just learned a few terms and words.

(11-11-2019, 03:09 AM)MacPasquale Wrote: The main problem I ended up having with the position was that it didn't address the problem of the Church's Visibility. 

I agree here. This is really the main problem, but it's somewhat distance to the initial conversations. As I like to say, I can forgive someone in 1970 for being SV, because there are mechanisms in place to deal with the visibility issues. In 2019, there's just no way that it can be made to work, at least not from Paul VI. And for the exact problem you say, not a single bishop with ordinary jurisdiction left, nor a single Cardinal from Pius XII who could elect a new Pope, and for the more extreme only a handful of validly ordained priests and bishops, while what looks like the Catholic Church continues on, and yet it is a charade.

(11-11-2019, 03:09 AM)MacPasquale Wrote: Salza can come off as annoying in "True or False Pope", but it's definitely worth the read.  

Totally agree. The theological background is excellent and sourcing is great. If it were not such a personal attack on certain people, I could recommend it without reservation. I really do think he had the chance at a great book and ruined it by trying to take cheap shots at certain people. He could easily have cited the arguments without acting like a 5-year-old.

It's a go-to reference, but it could have been so much better.
Reply
#25
What I wrote was stupid. I deleted it.
My word choices are based on sound, not meaning.

Yes, that defeats the purpose of language.
Reply
#26
Our Lord never desired schism.
To attend the TLM, you don’t need to go into schism.
At your judgment, you’re going to need to give an account for the state of your soul.
If you’re found without charity, you’ll be like the one at the wedding feast without a wedding garment.
Sedevacantism is all about finding fault in things, and has little — if anything — to do with cooperating with God’s grace, and striving towards perfection.
Reply
#27
Deleted post.
Pointless.
[-] The following 1 user Likes FultonFan's post:
  • MacPasquale
Reply
#28
(11-11-2019, 05:11 AM)MacPasquale Wrote: What I wrote was stupid.  I deleted it.

(11-11-2019, 08:30 AM)FultonFan Wrote: Deleted post.
Pointless.

:Hmm:
[-] The following 1 user Likes Imperator Caesar Trump's post:
  • MacPasquale
Reply
#29
(11-11-2019, 08:08 AM)FultonFan Wrote: Sedevacantism is all about finding fault in things, and has little — if anything — to do with cooperating with God’s grace, and striving towards perfection.

I don't know.

I think the good willed SVs are really trying to square this circle that is the crisis in the Church, like we all are.

They go about it wrongly, and make some mistakes, but I'm willing to give those who are not zealots for the position a wide berth. I have plenty of SV friends. I even know one person who is a mainstay of the SSPX parish who is firmly a Sedevacantist, but is also not an apologist for the position. People know his position, and yet he has no problem if others reject it.

There's really a variety and many people are good willed. It's the loud mouths who demands they everyone agree, and critique everything and set themselves up as the authority who are always the issue. Few, but loud.

I still think the theories cause a massive problem theologically, but for those of good will, its worth having a good willed discussion. For the others it's best just to ignore them and let them fight their windmills.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • MacPasquale
Reply
#30
(11-11-2019, 04:40 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(11-11-2019, 08:08 AM)FultonFan Wrote: Sedevacantism is all about finding fault in things, and has little — if anything — to do with cooperating with God’s grace, and striving towards perfection.

I don't know.

I think the good willed SVs are really trying to square this circle that is the crisis in the Church, like we all are.

They go about it wrongly, and make some mistakes, but I'm willing to give those who are not zealots for the position a wide berth. I have plenty of SV friends. I even know one person who is a mainstay of the SSPX parish who is firmly a Sedevacantist, but is also not an apologist for the position. People know his position, and yet he has no problem if others reject it.

There's really a variety and many people are good willed. It's the loud mouths who demands they everyone agree, and critique everything and set themselves up as the authority who are always the issue. Few, but loud.

I still think the theories cause a massive problem theologically, but for those of good will, its worth having a good willed discussion. For the others it's best just to ignore them and let them fight their windmills.

Excellent point.

Schismatics and/or Sedevacantists I think need to be remembered continually in our prayers.

To me, it seems very clear that many of these people have a very genuine love for the Lord. We ought to pray for them just as Christ prayed to His Father, viz. “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”. Because I think that’s genuinely the case many tines: they simply don’t realize the gravity of what they’re doing by taking their false positions.

I think many Sedevacantists long for a true Catholic Kingdom on Earth. That’s a good desire, but as I’ve said elsewhere, the state of one’s heart should be cleansed and mortified before the exterior is cleaned. I think Christ was clear on this. 

Judas was disappointed that there wasn’t a giant Messianic Kingdom for him to be joined with, and the Pharisees couldn’t accept the person of Our Lord in His human nature. That’s why, again, we need to pray, pray, pray.

I’ve just recently learned that it’s the opinion of the Church that St. Paul’s election was due to the prayer of St. Stephen.

If we don’t pray for those that are blind, for them to receive the graces needed for salvation, then we’re just blowing a lot of hot air.
[-] The following 2 users Like FultonFan's post:
  • antiquarian, MacPasquale
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)