Objections to Sedevacantism?
#1
Hi everyone, hope you’re all well. As you know, I’m one of the very very few public Sedevacantists here, specifically a Sedeprivationist. So I wanted to ask, what are your objections to Sedevacantism in general and Sedeprivationism specifically? I am not going to debate you, I promise. I will not even respond with an objection to an objection. 

What I am doing is trying to engage in an honest and intellectual testing of my position. I have 2 years before I enter either the SSPX, ICKSP, or RCI (Bishop Sanborn’s organization) seminary. Thus in these 2 years I want to be completely sure of my position, completely sure of defending it and having it as the rock I’m on.

I’m very thankful for whatever you list down, I will be creating a list of all of the objections. If I cannot face them with all the research and help from the Sede side, then I will honestly submit and return to the post-Conciliar church.

Thanks, 

Noah
“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
[-] The following 2 users Like Memories_in_Rain's post:
  • J Michael, SacraCor714
Reply
#2
Hi Noah.

I am not a theologian and will try to avoid "thin ice". I assume we all agree that the Church of Pius XII was the true Church. I will assume the sedevacantist position we discuss is that John XXIII and his successors were false popes, or at least were "not formally popes" as the sedeprivationists might say. Here's my main objection:

Because identifying the true Church is so important for salvation, I believe God wants the true Church to be easily identified by ordinary people. I think when Pius XII died, there were about 2000 Catholic bishops in the world. The Catholic laity are justly taught to be subject to their bishops:
Hebrews 13 Wrote:Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.
Now what the sedevacantists say, if I am not mistaken, is that ALL of these Catholic bishops (I have not heard of any exception among the bishops who survived into 1959) erred in believing Angelo Roncalli to be in full possession of all papal authority, and the faithful erred in following their bishops. Among these bishops, not a single voice was raised up by God to warn the others. Is this credible? Is this how God shows his faithful the way to Heaven, by letting them all be deceived for years in a matter of such great moment? I cannot believe it.
[-] The following 4 users Like Marmot's post:
  • jovan66102, Memories_in_Rain, PilgrimMichelangelo, ServusDei
Reply
#3
For me, if being in communion with the bishop of Rome is absolutely necessary for the salvation of souls, then it seems logically impossible that God would allow the Church to ever be without a true pope that fulfills that requirement.  If the seat is vacant, then it is impossible for anyone who dies during that period to be saved.  I don't accept that one can be in communion with the Church if that church is missing what uniquely defines it as THE Church.  Or, God is a capricious monster who thought it would be fun to watch us squirm, trying to find the narrow road, knowing that it was completely impossible for us.

Sedeprivationism possibly resolves that problem.  But it seems somewhat dissociative.  How can someone hold an office but not the charisms that go with it?  And it possibly doesn't resolve the salvation problem that sedevacantism presents.  If a man is truly in the office of the pope, but doesn't have any of the charisms, then can being in communion with him offer us that vital link to salvation?  Being in communion with the pope seems to adhere to the mystical aspect of the papacy, not the administrative aspect.  If it were the administrative role alone that linked us to the rest of the Church, then we should be equally ensured of salvation by being in communion with any bishop that holds the true Faith, regardless of whether they are in communion with Rome or not.
[-] The following 5 users Like Melkite's post:
  • jovan66102, Memories_in_Rain, PilgrimMichelangelo, ServusDei, Username1
Reply
#4
My chief objection to sedevacantism is that it is schismatic.  Under Canon 751, "schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."  Since sedevacantists refuse submission to the pope, they are in schism.  Schism incurs latae sententiae excommunication.  Hence, sedevacantists are excommunicated.  It is a very heavy price to pay for "purity."

Generally, I find sedevacantism to be logic run amok.  It ignores the mercy and providence of God.
"[I]t is vain to hope to attract souls to God by a bitter zeal."  Pope St. Pius X.

"If anyone deludes himself by thinking he is serving God, when he has not learned to control his tongue, the service he gives is vain.  If he is to offer service pure and unblemished in the sight of God, who is our Father, he must take care of orphans and widows in their need, and keep himself unstained by the world."  James 1:26-27.
[-] The following 2 users Like Clare Brigid's post:
  • PilgrimMichelangelo, ServusDei
Reply
#5
(05-03-2021, 05:59 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote: My chief objection to sedevacantism is that it is schismatic.  Under Canon 751, "schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."  Since sedevacantists refuse submission to the pope, they are in schism.  Schism incurs latae sententiae excommunication.  Hence, sedevacantists are excommunicated.  It is a very heavy price to pay for "purity."

Generally, I find sedevacantism to be logic run amok.  It ignores the mercy and providence of God.
However, is sedevacantists are right, non sedevacantists are committing schism by following a false pope.
Reply
#6
My problem with sedevacantism in general is that rather than submitting themselves to the Church and to the Pope whom there is reason to believe is the one and only, they submit said Church and Pope to their own personal judgement. In my opinion, that reeks of pride. I don't want to attack sedevacantists in general, there certainly are disturbing things happening, and some see it as an easy way out, which brings me to

My second problem, which is that many sedevacantists seem to be disillusioned. Sedevacantists mostly seem unable to cope with what is happening without recourse to -- what is, in my opinion -- an alternate reality that affirms their particular views and concerns. It very well may be the new Protestant Reformation, whereby they who see wrongs in the Church embark on wayward courses, emphasizing those aspects of the Faith which they deem particularly essential, while denying and doing away with those they don't.
:monstrance:Deo Gratias et Ave Maria! :monstrance:
Pray the Rosary

A Dieu mon ame,
Mon arme au roi,
Mon Coeur a la dame,
Mon honneur a moi!
[-] The following 4 users Like ServusDei's post:
  • DNJC.org, Kitten Kaboodle, Memories_in_Rain, PilgrimMichelangelo
Reply
#7
(05-03-2021, 06:59 PM)Bataar Wrote:
(05-03-2021, 05:59 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote: My chief objection to sedevacantism is that it is schismatic.  Under Canon 751, "schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."  Since sedevacantists refuse submission to the pope, they are in schism.  Schism incurs latae sententiae excommunication.  Hence, sedevacantists are excommunicated.  It is a very heavy price to pay for "purity."

Generally, I find sedevacantism to be logic run amok.  It ignores the mercy and providence of God.
However, is sedevacantists are right, non sedevacantists are committing schism by following a false pope.

Is that really the case if it is believed in earnest that the pope is real? Schism or atleast excommunication must be done with the knowledge that it is a schismatic act.

My main issue with sedevacantism is that the question of who was a false pope becomes crucial to determining whether there is even a visible church left, not to mention figuring out which particular pope was the last true one. If we no longer even possess the sacraments what then distinguishes us from Protestantism? We no longer have apostolic succession. We no longer can claim oneness. The only possible way this would be resolved is massive divine intervention and thus far there's nothing. 

I do have a question and if it comes off as disrespectful I apologize. Were Pope Francis to suddenly face his judgement tomorrow and the next day a pope is elected who chases out every cardinal with a torch made from the scraps of Vatican II documents, would you accept him as pope? If so, how can that be if he was elected by invalid priests?
With no king to rule me I owe my fealty only to God.
[-] The following 4 users Like HedgeKnight's post:
  • Melkite, Memories_in_Rain, PilgrimMichelangelo, ServusDei
Reply
#8
HedgeKnight Wrote:
Bataar Wrote:
Clare Brigid Wrote:My chief objection to sedevacantism is that it is schismatic.  Under Canon 751, "schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."  Since sedevacantists refuse submission to the pope, they are in schism.  Schism incurs latae sententiae excommunication.  Hence, sedevacantists are excommunicated.  It is a very heavy price to pay for "purity."

Generally, I find sedevacantism to be logic run amok.  It ignores the mercy and providence of God.
However, is sedevacantists are right, non sedevacantists are committing schism by following a false pope.

Is that really the case if it is believed in earnest that the pope is real? Schism or atleast excommunication must be done with the knowledge that it is a schismatic act.

Well, now he knows.
"[I]t is vain to hope to attract souls to God by a bitter zeal."  Pope St. Pius X.

"If anyone deludes himself by thinking he is serving God, when he has not learned to control his tongue, the service he gives is vain.  If he is to offer service pure and unblemished in the sight of God, who is our Father, he must take care of orphans and widows in their need, and keep himself unstained by the world."  James 1:26-27.
Reply
#9
(05-03-2021, 05:59 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote: My chief objection to sedevacantism is that it is schismatic.  Under Canon 751, "schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."  Since sedevacantists refuse submission to the pope, they are in schism.  Schism incurs latae sententiae excommunication.  Hence, sedevacantists are excommunicated.  It is a very heavy price to pay for "purity."

Generally, I find sedevacantism to be logic run amok.  It ignores the mercy and providence of God.

You just said in another forum you rejected Dominus Iesus and the CDF's statement regarding it...on top of that you appear to hold to the Feeneyite position regarding EENS.

I'm not trying to pick on you, but isn't this pot calling the kettle black?
Reply
#10
austenbosten Wrote:
Clare Brigid Wrote:My chief objection to sedevacantism is that it is schismatic.  Under Canon 751, "schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."  Since sedevacantists refuse submission to the pope, they are in schism.  Schism incurs latae sententiae excommunication.  Hence, sedevacantists are excommunicated.  It is a very heavy price to pay for "purity."

Generally, I find sedevacantism to be logic run amok.  It ignores the mercy and providence of God.

You just said in another forum you rejected Dominus Iesus and the CDF's statement regarding it...on top of that you appear to hold to the Feeneyite position regarding EENS.

I'm not trying to pick on you, but isn't this pot calling the kettle black?

No.  I didn't say I rejected Dominus Iesus.  I said that others on this forum rejected it.  And I never said I rejected the 2016 CDF document.

I have said repeatedly that I accept the current teaching of the Church, but give it the strictest possible interpretation.

So no, there is no inconsistency.
"[I]t is vain to hope to attract souls to God by a bitter zeal."  Pope St. Pius X.

"If anyone deludes himself by thinking he is serving God, when he has not learned to control his tongue, the service he gives is vain.  If he is to offer service pure and unblemished in the sight of God, who is our Father, he must take care of orphans and widows in their need, and keep himself unstained by the world."  James 1:26-27.
[-] The following 2 users Like Clare Brigid's post:
  • austenbosten, PilgrimMichelangelo
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)