Objections to Sedevacantism?
#51
Sedevacantism, in my opinion, seems to be highly contingent on whether we're approaching the events of the the Apocalypse or not. Otherwise, it's hard to get around the pronouncements in Holy Scripture (Matthew 16:18 most famously) and Church documents (Pastor Aeternus, Chap. 2) which teach that a successor of St. Peter will be on the Chair until the "End of Time."

It does seem to me to be supremely unwise to formulate an elaborate doctrine and practice on end times speculation. Protestants have a cottage industry of doing this very sort of thing. Revelation/Apocalypse is, after all, a very difficult book to interpret, chock full of heavy symbolism, poetic language, OT references and so on. (Not that all sedes take this "end of days" approach, but I also don't see how one can be a thoughtful sedevacantist without going this route for the reasons I mentioned.)

I will say this though: The Whore of Babylon from Apocalypse 17 does seem, at face value, to represent some sort of "false counter-church" that is in Rome in some capacity: the spiritual adultery, her sitting on seven hills and being that great city which ruled over the earth's kings in St. John's day, her boasting of being "no widow" (blaspheming Christ who died for His Bride, the Church), being clothed in scarlet and purple, etc. etc. 

Some of these attributes could be said to apply to Jerusalem, or maybe the Jewish people, like spiritual harlotry, the being clothed in scarlet and purple, the boasting of being a queen and no widow (Ezekiel 16 comes to mind in many of these). But in no sense did the Jews/Jerusalem rule over the kings of the earth of the day, like Rome did. Of course, it's entirely possible that the seemingly "obvious" allusion to Rome is itself symbolic too right? Maybe, maybe not. 

I guess that's my point.. this sort of apocalyptic theorizing seems to be pretty shaky ground to base Sedevacantism on, considering the radical conclusion of Sede-ism, but end-times Sede-ism seems to be the only logical form in light of Scripture/pre-VII Magisterial teaching. (Of course, I could be entirely wrong, but this is one reason I personally came to reject the theory of Sedevacantism: it is imprudent. 2 Peter 1:16-20 and the whole notion in "salvation history" of major revelation being a public (often mass) event, from Sinai to the Prophets to Our Lord's ministry, also leads me to doubt Sedevacantism. It would seem that if Sedevacantism were true, that clear signs from God would accompany its dissemination among the People of God, that wouldn't be mere private revelation which the Church teaches that nobody is obligated to believe, but something of a higher level of authority, whatever that might look like.) 

Another, albeit much weaker argument would be the infighting of Sedes among themselves. While Church infighting is nothing new, one would expect these people, presumably the refined remnant of the Church of the last days, to be united and known for great personal holiness. (By their fruits, etc.)

Like all of us here though, I'm trying to make sense of Pope Francis' confusing statements on faith and morals and what could only be called his allowance of unprecedented sacrilege in the Vatican (allowing the worship of the Pachamama idol in the Vatican Gardens) and also some of the actions the Popes post-VII have done like Pope St, John Paul II's Assisi summit. Sedevacantism is a tempting theory to make sense of this chaos, but it does not seem to stand up to scrutiny. I'm all ears though if I have it wrong..
 

As an aside, I seem to recall Sedevacantist material claiming that some old eminent theologians/fathers did hold the WoB=Counter-Church in Rome, or something to that effect, but I don't remember who they were speaking of. Perhaps it's a memory flub, but has anyone read/heard anything like this?  If so, which theologians/fathers? I'm curious. Thanks in advance. 

Interesting thread!
[-] The following 1 user Likes OfGuestsandGeists's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#52
Jurisdiction to administer sacraments is the only thing stopping me from leaving the R&R camp. Sacraments are effective because of their jurisdiction to do so, and jurisdiction to confer sacraments is provided by God through the Pope to the Church. No Pope, no authority to administer sacraments, no sacraments. A sedevacantist response saying authority comes from either God Himself in times like these or from the effects the last valid Pope would make either the entire Papcy superfluous to the Faith, or make the succession of Popes superfluous to the Faith, both of which I cant believe. The Pope being a heretic may dethrone him from the fullness of the Papacy (hence resistance), but at the very least the material presence of the Chair being occupied seems fundamental to the continuation of both valid sacraments and the Church itself. Therefore if sedevacantism were indeed true, your absolution in confession would not be valid regardless who your confessor was.
Daily Rosary pray,
Scapular as She asked,
Little Office at my side,
Until the day I pass.

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:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#53
Dear brother.

Now, one of the things that bothers me with sedevacantism is firstly the very harsh reality that it imagines. No pope since 1958, and 99% of today's sacraments and Masses are considered invalid. 99% of clergy are just lay people in clerical dresses. And there is no end in sight to that state, so it could continue on and on for decades. That is so harsh and problematic to imagine.

Personally, I am what would be called here, a Novus Ordo Catholic. I attend the Ordinary Form of the Mass, and I do have leanings toward traditional Catholicism, to groups like FSSP or ICKSP, the Una Voce societies and so on. I am a former Protestant. And let me tell you, brother, radical traditionalism reminds me so much of the Protestantism that I left. Why? Well, we have sedevacantists, sedeprivationists, conclavists, sedeplenists.. Groups splitting, sedevacantist and other traditional clergy arguing. Division even among lay people. Some call ones too extreme, some call others too liberal. Some groups are outright sedevacantist, some are neutral, some are sedeprivationist, some are Resistance or SSPX. There are even independent sedevacantists I think, who may think none of the groups are the real thing.

I am kind of neutral when it comes to the SSPX. The thing that bothers me the most is that they call the Ordinary Form evil, and that we shouldn't attend it. That's unacceptable, and outright wrong. I have never been to a TLM, but let me tell you, when I hear Mass piously and attentively, I cannot describe how I get soaked in the richness of the Holy Catholic Faith. The prayers, hymns, gestures, small details give great lessons to those who pay attention. And, yes, the Sacrifice of Our Lord is not neglected at all in the Ordinary Form. The Eucharistic Prayers, the words of Consecration, the "Behold the Lamb of God. Behold Him who takes away the sins of the world". 

So, in short, the continous divisions and splitting, and harsh reality of the sedevacantist idea. The other theological and canonical reasons, I, who has no formal theological education, leave it to those who are more learned and informed.
Reply
#54
(12-14-2021, 07:00 AM)CatholicCroat Wrote: Some groups are outright sedevacantist, some are neutral, some are sedeprivationist, some are Resistance or SSPX. There are even independent sedevacantists I think, who may think none of the groups are the real thing.

The world is going to eat them alive. Once you split into mini factions and abandon the cloak of Mary, to rely only on the protection of little groups of donors you basically preach and say what they tell you, just like Luther with the German Princes. The SSPX, however, isn't schismatic (yet).
"We thought we could stay healthy in a sick world" - Pope.
Reply
#55
(12-14-2021, 07:39 AM)NoliTardare Wrote:
(12-14-2021, 07:00 AM)CatholicCroat Wrote: Some groups are outright sedevacantist, some are neutral, some are sedeprivationist, some are Resistance or SSPX. There are even independent sedevacantists I think, who may think none of the groups are the real thing.

The world is going to eat them alive. Once you split into mini factions and abandon the cloak of Mary, to rely only on the protection of little groups of donors you basically preach and say what they tell you, just like Luther with the German Princes. The SSPX, however, isn't schismatic (yet).

While I am aware that they are in an irregular state. I also see divisions among them. So far from SSPX we have those who went to sedevacantism, and those who went to the Resistance. But, I think even today, there is an interior, perhaps barely visible, dispute in the SSPX. Some are more open to Rome, some are not. Some approve of Bp. Fellay, some may think he is becoming too open. But again, one of the biggest no-no's for me is their approach to the Ordinary Form of the Mass. I firmly believe that a serious/honest Protestant would disapprove of the Ordinary Form, just like I did in Protestantism the Holy Mass and Eucharist. I deemed it abominable and that Catholics were blinded. But boy, do I grow in love for the Faith and see how Protestantism is wrong and lacking through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass now, and yes, through the Ordinary Form, which some deem as un-Catholic or poorly Catholic.
Reply
#56
(12-14-2021, 07:53 AM)CatholicCroat Wrote:
(12-14-2021, 07:39 AM)NoliTardare Wrote:
(12-14-2021, 07:00 AM)CatholicCroat Wrote: Some groups are outright sedevacantist, some are neutral, some are sedeprivationist, some are Resistance or SSPX. There are even independent sedevacantists I think, who may think none of the groups are the real thing.

The world is going to eat them alive. Once you split into mini factions and abandon the cloak of Mary, to rely only on the protection of little groups of donors you basically preach and say what they tell you, just like Luther with the German Princes. The SSPX, however, isn't schismatic (yet).

While I am aware that they are in an irregular state. I also see divisions among them. So far from SSPX we have those who went to sedevacantism, and those who went to the Resistance. But, I think even today, there is an interior, perhaps barely visible, dispute in the SSPX. Some are more open to Rome, some are not. Some approve of Bp. Fellay, some may think he is becoming too open. But again, one of the biggest no-no's for me is their approach to the Ordinary Form of the Mass. I firmly believe that a serious/honest Protestant would disapprove of the Ordinary Form, just like I did in Protestantism the Holy Mass and Eucharist. I deemed it abominable and that Catholics were blinded. But boy, do I grow in love for the Faith and see how Protestantism is wrong and lacking through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass now, and yes, through the Ordinary Form, which some deem as un-Catholic or poorly Catholic.

It has to be said that the "ordinary" form has few decades of life, the more antiquiore has a proved history of over four centuries, but being a restored apostolic mass has virtually an even longer history. At least both the rites have equal dignity. The problem with them isn't the mass, they've been told in the past they can perform the mass, and have a certain independence, but the then Bishop Lefebvre answered in the negative. There's even a transcription of a talk with Paul VI in Rome, where the mass question wasn't even one of the reproaches Paul VI made to him. The problem here is the Catholic faith has a Pope, whether we like him or not.
"We thought we could stay healthy in a sick world" - Pope.
Reply
#57
(12-04-2021, 11:13 PM)OfGuestsandGeists Wrote: I will say this though: The Whore of Babylon from Apocalypse 17 does seem, at face value, to represent some sort of "false counter-church" that is in Rome in some capacity: the spiritual adultery, her sitting on seven hills and being that great city which ruled over the earth's kings in St. John's day, her boasting of being "no widow" (blaspheming Christ who died for His Bride, the Church), being clothed in scarlet and purple, etc. etc. 

Going to add to this idea because it got me thinking.

I could be wrong, but if I recall correctly, at La Sallette, Mary did state that Rome will loose the faith. If I am remembering that correctly, then that does seem to indicate that Rome, which has almost always been seen as the papacy/vatican, can and will loose the faith. With that said, we are assured from God that the church founded by Him can not be overtaken.

Ergo, and as long as I am remembering this correctly, since few here want to conceive of declaring God a liar, nor of declaring Mary a liar (that would be a great conversation with God during our judgment), then it stands to reason that it is possible for the church to stand, even if (and really when) the visible head and the rest of the hierarchy have lost the faith.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)