Sedevacantism

[Jonathan95]

I would recommend you to spend some time studying concepts of moral theology, and this may start making some sense to you. Not an easy topic to discuss in such a short format. A good book you can get cheap or even for free if you have iBooks or Kindle is Explanation of Catholic Morals.

Is it this one?

Someone gave it a 1-star rating, and wrote: "Very hard to read....Higly philosophical...I was unable to make any sense of it. I would have prefer it to be very, very basic."

If it's hard for him, wouldn't it be hard for me too then?

 

[packermann]

Well, that's how sedevacantists argue, since they believe that the gates of hell would not prevail, then if the VC 2 popes were true popes, then the gates of hell would have prevailed since they (according to them) taught heresy.

But on what authority do they that a pope taught heresy? Only the pope and the councils with the pope is infallible. The sedevacantists would admit, I think, that everyone else is fallible, which means that the sedevacantists can make a mistake. It is a matter of how the sedevacantist interprets the situation to say that the pope is a heretic. I would never call a person a heretic unless the Church officially called him a heretic.

Three things must be there for a person to be culpable of mortal sin. It must be a grave matter (heresy would be grave metter, it must be deliberate, and must be with fully knowledge. Even if Pope John XXIII is guilty of the first, I think it is must hard for an indivual to determine the other two.

But let's say for the sake of argument that Pope John XXIII was an invalid pope. I do not think it necessarily follows that the subsequent popes are invalid. Popes do not directly assign the next popes. Instead, the popes elect some to the college of cardinals. So how many did Pope John XXIII appoint as cardinals? The college cardinals after the death of Pope John XXIII would be a mixture of cardinals appointed by Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII, and maybe some cardinals werer appointed the pope before Pope Pius XII. Do you know for sure that the majority of cardinals appointed by popes before Pope John XXIII did not vote for Pope Paul VI? I do not know how that could could ever be determined, since voting is a private ballot, I believe.

Did the faithful Catholic remnant have a Pope during the Arian crisis?

Pope Liberius was a pope under Arian influence (325-366) who excommunicated Athanasius (see Letter of St. Athanasius). If sedevacantist argument holds any weight, then we have been without a valid pope since 325 Ad.

Wasn't Martin Luther a heretic even before he was formally condemned as a heretic by the pope?

No. A heresy must go against doctrine offically defined already by the Church. A doctor of the Church can teach something that goes against a future teaching of the Church and still be a doctor.

 

[Erose]

Is it this one?

Someone gave it a 1-star rating, and wrote: "Very hard to read....Higly philosophical...I was unable to make any sense of it. I would have prefer it to be very, very basic."

If it's hard for him, wouldn't it be hard for me too then?

I had my son read it (he is 18), and he did find it hard reading, but moral theology isn't an easy read to begin with. But he is getting through it.

The key though is to understand that it is easy to say what is and what is not a sinful act. It is quite another to determine the culpability of that act. A sin committed by one person, may be mortal, but to another it may not be, depending upon the level of ignorance and restriction to their free will.

Like I said, Dogmatic Theology deals in black and white; while moral theology deals in shades of gray. It is important to understand that this is the case.

 

[packermann]

Jonathan95

If the Sedevacantists argument that Pope John XXIII was an invalid pope because he was automatically excommunicated for heresy by joining the freemasons, then, it seems to me, that every single pope after Pope Honorius in 638 AD was invalid.

Pope Honorius propograted the heresy of Monothelitism. He was condemned and post-humously by the Third Council of Constaninople and by Pope Leo II. So it is not just some individuals calling Honorius a heretic, but the Catholic Church as well!

So if a heresy makes a pope invalid and all subsequent popes invalid, then the seat has been vacant since 638 AD.

See Pope Honorius I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Erose]

Jonathan95

If the Sedevacantists argument that Pope John XXIII was an invalid pope because he was automatically excommunicated for heresy by joining the freemasons, then, it seems to me, that every single pope after Pope Honorius in 638 AD was invalid.

Packermann, your argument doesn't hold water. Pope Honorius was never condemned officially as a heretic; but rather he was condemned for negligence.

Pope Honorius propograted the heresy of Monothelitism. He was condemned and post-humously by the Third Council of Constaninople and by Pope Leo II. So it is not just some individuals calling Honorius a heretic, but the Catholic Church as well!

This is a false statement.

So if a heresy makes a pope invalid and all subsequent popes invalid, then the seat has been vacant since 638 AD.

This conclusion is invalid as one of your premises is false.

A better explanation of the situation of Pope Honorius can be found here:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Pope Honorius I

One question I have is what evidence exists that shows Pope John XXIII was a mason?

 

[packermann]

Packermann, your argument doesn't hold water. Pope Honorius was never condemned officially as a heretic; but rather he was condemned for negligence.

Although the author of the article thinks that it is harsh to regard him as a "private heretic", he admits that Pope Honorius was listed as a heretic by two ecumenical councils.

Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says:

Pope Honorius was subsequently included in the lists of heretics anathematized by the Trullan Synod, and by the seventh and eighth ecumenical councils without special remark; also in the oath taken by every new pope from the eighth century to the eleventh in the following words: "Together with Honorius, who added fuel to their wicked assertions" (Liber diurnus, ii, 9). It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned. But he was not condemned as a Monothelite, nor was Sergius. And it would be harsh to regard him as a "private heretic", for he admittedly had excellent intentions.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Pope Honorius I

On one side, it says it would be harsh to call him a "private heretic", since he had "excellent intentions". BUT he was included in the lists of heretics by two ecumenical councils without special remark. The article also says he was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact.

Let's compare this to Pope John XXIII

Pope Honorius was not intentional heretic. It has not be proven that Pope John XXIII was an intentional heretic, either.

Pope Honorius was listed as a heretic in two ecumenical councils. Pope John XXIII was never listed as a heretic by any council.

So if a vacant seat is possible (which I do not believe it is), it would have been vacant at the start of the middle ages under Pope Honorius. The argument is stronger that Honorius was a heretic than it is that Pope John XXIII. Even if Pope John XXIII did join the freemasons, it does not mean that he ever taught heresy. He is guilty of disobeying the commands of the Church to not join the freemasons. If he had done that, I would have to say that this was not intentional. Pope Honorius was not an intentional heretic. And Pope John XXIII did not intentionally disobey the Church - based on the fact that the Church will canonize Pope John XXIII this spring.

 

[Erose]

Although the author of the article thinks that it is harsh to regard him as a "private heretic", he admits that Pope Honorius was listed as a heretic by two ecumenical councils.

Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says:

Pope Honorius was subsequently included in the lists of heretics anathematized by the Trullan Synod, and by the seventh and eighth ecumenical councils without special remark; also in the oath taken by every new pope from the eighth century to the eleventh in the following words: "Together with Honorius, who added fuel to their wicked assertions" (Liber diurnus, ii, 9). It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned. But he was not condemned as a Monothelite, nor was Sergius. And it would be harsh to regard him as a "private heretic", for he admittedly had excellent intentions.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Pope Honorius I

On one side, it says it would be harsh to call him a "private heretic", since he had "excellent intentions". BUT he was included in the lists of heretics by two ecumenical councils without special remark. The article also says he was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact.

Let's compare this to Pope John XXIII

Pope Honorius was not intentional heretic. It has not be proven that Pope John XXIII was an intentional heretic, either.

Pope Honorius was listed as a heretic in two ecumenical councils. Pope John XXIII was never listed as a heretic by any council.

So if a vacant seat is possible (which I do not believe it is), it would have been vacant at the start of the middle ages under Pope Honorius. The argument is stronger that Honorius was a heretic than it is that Pope John XXIII. Even if Pope John XXIII did join the freemasons, it does not mean that he ever taught heresy. He is guilty of disobeying the commands of the Church to not join the freemasons. If he had done that, I would have to say that this was not intentional. Pope Honorius was not an intentional heretic. And Pope John XXIII did not intentionally disobey the Church - based on the fact that the Church will canonize Pope John XXIII this spring.

You also have to understand how Ecumenical councils work as well. The canons that referred to Honorius as a heretic were never ratified by the existing pope. Rather Honorius was sanctioned for negligence of office not heresy. Honorius was never a heretic. What he wrote was ambiguous and could be taken as either a heretical statement or as a orthodox one.

Concerning John XXIII being a mason...well I'm not really sure why this is being entertained. There is no evidence only hearsay, by those who have a beef with the Catholic Church. They have to have some justification in their minds for why they have separated themselves from the fullness of faith. And usually those justifications are alway lies.

 

[packermann]

You also have to understand how Ecumenical councils work as well. The canons that referred to Honorius as a heretic were never ratified by the existing pope. Rather Honorius was sanctioned for negligence of office not heresy. Honorius was never a heretic. What he wrote was ambiguous and could be taken as either a heretical statement or as a orthodox one.

Don't get me wrong! It does not matter to me if he is a heretic or not. If he is, he did not say any heresy in an excathedra statement. A pope can err as long as it is not excathedra. But we as Catholics are still obligated to submit to his non-excathedra teaching while he is pope.

Concerning John XXIII being a mason...well I'm not really sure why this is being entertained. There is no evidence only hearsay, by those who have a beef with the Catholic Church. They have to have some justification in their minds for why they have separated themselves from the fullness of faith. And usually those justifications are alway lies.

Agree. I would rather not get into whether he was a freemason. Once we go down that road, how we know that others before him were not secretly freemasons? And the popes before Pope John XXIII appointed the cardinals that elected Pope John XXIII. If the cardinals made such a bad decision that they elected an invalid pope, why did the Holy Spirit not stop them? If the Holy Spirit could not or would not stop them from making a decision that would make the Church no longer the true Church, how can we trust that the Holy Spirit ever to guide the Church into any truth?