Sedevecantism Continued

[John Luze]

Inviting anybody who is interested in continuing the discussion on Sedevacantism. This is not meant to be a competition, this is for people who readily recognize that there is a problem in the Church today, and just want find a solution. We cannot, however, identify a solution if we cannot identify the problem.
Is it because there is no legitimate successor of St. Peter today? Or maybe these are just more cases of bad popes that we need to wait out? Either way, the conclusions for either side are grave. However, being that we are all Catholic and genuinely want to hold the Catholic Faith, no one can say either side isn't Catholic. Not only would that be begging the question, but it would be false. At worse, either side are simply "Catholics in error", which is the lowest level of "heresy" if you will and does not qualify somebody being cut off from the Church.
So, how about we begin the discussion? I personally hold the Sedevacantist position. I don't see how you can rectify the blatant contradictions made at Vatican II and the post-Conciliar claimants to the papacy with the Magisterium of the Church. Given the principles laid down in Galatians 1:8, and in Pope Paul IV's bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio (Heretics cannot be validly elected to the Papacy), is there a way these men could be true popes?

 

[Imperiuz]

It's no secret I have very little positive to say about Francis. However, afaik, the only time when his theological integrity is relevant (well not really from a pastoral standpoint, but theologically) is when he speaks ex cathedra. Meaning he can say whatever he wants, but the holy spirit will prevent him from turning those errors into dogma. What is basically happening here is that the pope puts popularity among (in our time liberal, globalist, cultural marxist) worldly powers before proclaiming the truth, and this is not the first time in history something like this has happen. This is terrible in many ways but not exactly on the level of heresy.

I have a question, out of curiosity: I read that Mel Gibson and his congregation are so called "Independent Traditionalists", with no ties with any particular organisation. It looks to me like the Sedevacantists are organizing in a way very similar to the Eastern Orthodox and the Old Calendarists in particular, with each bishop operating his own Church autonomously, sometimes in communion with other similar Churches and sometimes not. Is this how it's going to be until the end of time now from our perspective, since the mechanism for electing a new pope isn't there anymore for you?

 

[John Luze]

Thank you for your response.

A few points
1. The Catholic faithful are not only bound by conscience to solemn ex cathedra pronouncements that come from the Holy See, or the Church's Extraordinary Magisterium. They are also bound to give the assent of faith to those things which come from the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium as well, or those things which the bishops around the world teach, in union with their head in Rome, in pastoral letters, synods, and especially catechisms.

2. Also, in regards to the obedience due to the Roman Pontiff, Pope Pius IX had this to say in his encyclical Quanta Cura: "Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that "without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals." But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church."

3. I feel that too often, Traditionalists get wrapped up around the infallibility debate. Did Vatican II meet the criteria for infallibility and therefore binding to the faithful? Does the post-Conciliar church meet it in any of its teachings? This debate would be relevant if we were taking about two opposing yet theologically acceptable opinions. Say Vatican II took place in 1820 and the issue was over the Immaculate Conception, and like today Traditionalists didn't agree with it. Some cried "Sede Vacante!", others didn't. Now being that the Church had not defined it at this point, then the infallibility argument would be relevant, are Catholics now bound to accept the Immaculate Conception or aren't they? But that is not the issue here. The doctrines that Vatican II covers, as well as the majority that the post-Conciliar popes espouse, are already defined, and condemned heresies of the Church. It doesn't matter how, or why Vatican II or the post-Conciliar popes proposed them (infallible, ex cathedra etc.), the fact that they proposed them at all is enough to show public heresy, and that they cannot be members of the Church (being that heresy cuts you off from the Church) and therefore they cannot be true Popes.

To the Mel Gibson question. So the reason most Sedevacantists remain independent is that they do not want to appear to be setting up "another Catholic Church" Rome is still the rule of faith, it's just that the seat is vacant and we are waiting for it to be filled. Until then, we are continuing to live the faith as the Church before Vatican II. Right now, no one has an answer to how the situation will be resolved, but the lack of a solution does not mean the lack of a problem. During the Western Schism, I'm sure it was also a very confusing time. Like today, I bet they didn't have all of the answers right away either as to how it was going to be resolved.

 

[Davidnic]

For those who support the possibility of a Vacant See how do you address the ramifications of the length of the supposed vacancy and its impact on cardinal electors. Validly and Licitly (two different but related issues) Ordained Bishops are dependent on many things that would be lacking in a vacant see. So if the see has been vacant for the supposed length of time...how would a proper conclave that would be valid select a new Pope?

Setting aside any debate on the merits of the vacant argument...if it is true how could a valid Pope be elected given the historic length of time involved, and how that impacts the valid or licit existence of electors?

 

[Meowzltov]

From the SOP:
For groups not in union with the Rome or in degrees of loose or fractured union we ask that you do not promote that the Seat is Vacant

 

[Davidnic]

They are allowed to discuss it as long as it is not promoted.

 

[Rhamiel]

sedevecantism seems to support Protestantism

Protestants seem to think that the Pope is not all that vital to the faith

the Lutherans and Anglicans, in principle, have nothing against a Bishop in Rome having first honors, as long as his role is not over played


I thought the Catholic view was someone along the lines that the Petrine Office is a needed and ancient part of the Church?

for God to just leave such a vital and critical component of the Church vacant
not only vacant, but with a Pretender, an Anti-Pope that has led the VAST majority of Catholics across the world into error?

no, not just an anti-pope
no, a contiguous string of anti-popes that have lasted over 50 years!

I mean if it was just ONE Pope the argument could be made that he is the false prophet of the end times (also questionable because we have not had the Great Catholic Monarch yet)
but a LINE of anti-popes with no true Pope in office?

seems like the works of an absentee god
not our kind Father who is the Lord of History

 

[Gnarwhal]

I mean if it was just ONE Pope the argument could be made that he is the false prophet of the end times (also questionable because we have not had the Great Catholic Monarch yet)
but a LINE of anti-popes with no true Pope in office?

If that right there were to be defended then I would almost say that makes the Confessional Lutherans right.

 

[Rhamiel]

If that right there were to be defended then I would almost say that makes the Confessional Lutherans right.

it makes it seem like the Pope is just "optional"

 

[MoonlessNight]

sedevecantism seems to support Protestantism

Protestants seem to think that the Pope is not all that vital to the faith

the Lutherans and Anglicans, in principle, have nothing against a Bishop in Rome having first honors, as long as his role is not over played


I thought the Catholic view was someone along the lines that the Petrine Office is a needed and ancient part of the Church?

for God to just leave such a vital and critical component of the Church vacant
not only vacant, but with a Pretender, an Anti-Pope that has led the VAST majority of Catholics across the world into error?

no, not just an anti-pope
no, a contiguous string of anti-popes that have lasted over 50 years!

I mean if it was just ONE Pope the argument could be made that he is the false prophet of the end times (also questionable because we have not had the Great Catholic Monarch yet)
but a LINE of anti-popes with no true Pope in office?

seems like the works of an absentee god
not our kind Father who is the Lord of History

I think that Pope Francis is the valid Pope, but I feel compelled to note that at the ending of the Avignon Popes, there were two antipopes who continued from Avignon (Clement VII and Benedict XIII) who retained support from much of the Catholic world (more notably from French nobles). The combined reign of the two was about 50 years. (They were succeeded by a few more antipopes, but those were pretty unimportant).

Of course, they had a clear opposing claim to the papacy (in contrast to the true Popes who had returned to Rome.) There isn't any clear candidate for a "true" Pope over the past 50 years if not the Popes in Rome (with I guess the possible exception of Benedict for those that do not support Francis, but generally sedevacantists reject more popes than the most recent one).

 

[Rhamiel]

I think that Pope Francis is the valid Pope, but I feel compelled to note that at the ending of the Avignon Popes, there were two antipopes who continued from Avignon (Clement VII and Benedict XIII) who retained support from much of the Catholic world (more notably from French nobles). The combined reign of the two was about 50 years. (They were succeeded by a few more antipopes, but those were pretty unimportant).

Of course, they had a clear opposing claim to the papacy (in contrast to the true Popes who had returned to Rome.) There isn't any clear candidate for a "true" Pope over the past 50 years if not the Popes in Rome (with I guess the possible exception of Benedict for those that do not support Francis, but generally sedevacantists reject more popes than the most recent one).

yeah
the time when we have had anti-Popes, there was clear problems
like even people who supported the Anti-Pope, they KNEW there was a fight going on
the way it is now, the idea of the Seat being empty is just surreal

 

[pdudgeon]

yeah
the time when we have had anti-Popes, there was clear problems
like even people who supported the Anti-Pope, they KNEW there was a fight going on
the way it is now, the idea of the Seat being empty is just surreal

actualy it's not so surreal.
just because the pause is happening where we can see it
doesn't mean that there's not quite a lot going on that we can't see offstage, so to speak.

 

[mea kulpa]

I am not a sedevacantist. Personally i believe that pope benedict xvi is the true pope. Not that i have anything against the man "francis" more his direction and leadership of the church

However it can be entirely possible that a long succesion of anti popes could speak from rome while a true pope/succesion of popes could exist imprisoned either in the vatican or exiled anywhere in the world. Though i dont think this is the case it is possible a false church could masqurade as the true church if the true pope(s) are "took out of the way"

There certainly is a crisis in the church i think it goes back many years probably back to the 1800's when freemasonic influences started infiltrating the priesthood and religious orders and later communist infiltraters in the early 1900s. I think vatican 2 was diabolical in the "spirit" due to the guidance and direction of the infiltrators our identity as a church had been lost for sometime and a "diabolical disorientation" has in large part decieved us thinking we were following the servents of christ we have been following the servants of satan and personally i think the popes since vatican 2 have done a marvelous job in holding back the tide. Now i think with popr benedict xvi out the way these servants of the enemie can have their way... but i think they will come under increasing opposition because as they make their play it will become increasingly more and more obvious to informed catholics.

Pope benedict xvi restored the latin mass and as a lifelong novus ordo attendee i believe he done so mainly to instill into us once again our catholic identity.

What are the solutions to the crisis... we need to turn back to God quite litteraly in the litturgy and regain our true identity spread the latin mass inform fellow catholics of dangerous documents and hidden agenda's we need to reintroduce the teaching of the catachism etc

 

[John Luze]

Sorry for the delay in responses, I've been tied up at work, happy to see the thread so active though!

To address the lengthy time of the vacancy that Sedevacantists suggest:
Yes, it is a lengthy amount of time, the longest in fact. The longest time before this was a interregnum of three years between the death of one pope and the election of another. Was that too long? If it's not, just how long is too long? Is there any principle that can give an exact amount of time? Here is what Father Edmund James O'Reilly, a leading theologian of his time, had to say on the matter when speaking of the Great western Schism:

“We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all throughout, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope — with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.”

Although it does seem unlikely, many unlikely things have happened in the Church's past, such as the Great Western Schism. What is also just as unlikely though, is that a Catholic Pope could scandalize the faith as much as the post-Conciliar popes have. I'm not talking here about morals-I know that we have had morally bad popes in the past-I am talking about the faith. With their constant praise of non-Catholic religions, partaking in non-Catholic ceremonies and prayer services, and a complete disregard and watering down of Catholic dogma, it's a wonder why anybody would think that you even need to be Catholic. In summary, there is nothing in Catholic theology that would prevent an interregnum of this length of time, and as hard as it is to believe, I find that when you compare the post-Conciliar popes to the popes in the preceding two hundred years-with them almost contradicting each other word for word-it is much harder to believe that these two groups of people are of the same authority.

To the accusation of Sedevacantism being likened to Protestantism:
If you are part of the recognize-and-resist camp, I think it could be argued that you may exemplify more Protestant positions than you think. To recognize someone as a legitimate Roman Pontiff, and not obey and accept their teachings, is tantamount to denying the importance and primacy of the Bishop of Rome. It is because of my belief in the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and his authority that I cannot recognize the post-Conciliar claimants as legitimate successors of Peter. When one reads the writings and behaviors of past Popes, it's almost as one person is writing them, they are in such union with one another, but you find a clear disconnect in the writings and behaviors of the post-Conciliar claimants.

There are multiple opinions on how the vacancy can be filled. I first want to say though, that just because a solution is not known, does not mean that a problem does not exist. Here is an interesting quote from Monsignor Charles Journet:

“During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, neither the Church nor the Council can contravene the provisions already laid down to determine the valid mode of election (Cardinal Cajetan, O.P., in De Comparata, cap. xiii, no. 202). However, in case of permission (for example if the Pope has provided nothing against it), or in case of ambiguity (for example, if it is unknown who the true Cardinals are or who the true Pope is, as was the case at the time of the Great Schism), the power ‘of applying the Papacy to such and such a person’ devolves on the universal Church, the Church of God” (Ibid., no. 204).

We cannot forbid such a case where God would divinely intervene, or would allow a divine dispensation to fill the Papacy, for this is certainly in His power. I am sorry if you feel like I am promoting Sedevacntism, I am just not sure how else to explain it.

One question I would have for non-Sedevacantists: How would you explain the blatant contradictions to the Catholic faith made by the post-Conciliar popes? If you do not think there are any, I would be happy to elaborate in a separate post.

 

[Meowzltov]

I'm not worried about the length of time the Sedes claim (although I doubt a Pre-Vatican II Pope is ever going to get elected). My problem is that there have been LEGITIMATLY ELECTED POPES during this time. To say these are anti-Popes is to say that the process of electing a pope is hogwash. No can believe.

 

[John Luze]

I'm not worried about the length of time the Sedes claim (although I doubt a Pre-Vatican II Pope is ever going to get elected). My problem is that there have been LEGITIMATLY ELECTED POPES during this time. To say these are anti-Popes is to say that the process of electing a pope is hogwash. No can believe.

You're right, for all appearances it has seemed as if a legitimate successor has been elected to the Papacy. But there are many instances where although it seems legitimate, someone may not actually become pope. Again, look at the Great Western Schism, it certainly seemed as if the Avignon claimants were elected, being that even St. Vincent recognized them as popes. Or how about the fabled case of "Pope Joan"? Surely if a woman did somehow manage to conceal her identity and be elected "pope" through the proper channels, that would in no way make her pope. Pope Paul IV declared that if someone was shown to be a heretic, even if he be the Roman Pontiff himself, his election would be totally null and void, even if it was accepted by the whole Church at the time of the election and over any amount of time after the election. All heretics are prevented by divine law from being pope. All of these instances show that the individual claimants, not the election process itself, are flawed and not able to be legitimately elected pope. So although for the last 60 years it sure seems as if the elections have been valid, Sedevacantists claim that the individual persons themselves were not able to validly become pope due to divine censures (heresy).

 

[Meowzltov]

Or how about the fabled case of "Pope Joan"?

There never was a Pope Joan, so it is not an argument for validly elected false Popes.

 

[Meowzltov]

You're right, for all appearances it has seemed as if a legitimate successor has been elected to the Papacy. But there are many instances where although it seems legitimate, someone may not actually become pope. Again, look at the Great Western Schism, it certainly seemed as if the Avignon claimants were elected, being that even St. Vincent recognized them as popes. Or how about the fabled case of "Pope Joan"? Surely if a woman did somehow manage to conceal her identity and be elected "pope" through the proper channels, that would in no way make her pope. Pope Paul IV declared that if someone was shown to be a heretic, even if he be the Roman Pontiff himself, his election would be totally null and void, even if it was accepted by the whole Church at the time of the election and over any amount of time after the election. All heretics are prevented by divine law from being pope. All of these instances show that the individual claimants, not the election process itself, are flawed and not able to be legitimately elected pope. So although for the last 60 years it sure seems as if the elections have been valid, Sedevacantists claim that the individual persons themselves were not able to validly become pope due to divine censures (heresy).

Or, they have warped ideas what heresy is, and need to bend their wills.

 

[Davidnic]

It still brings the question if you have no validly consecrated Bishops you have no way to elect a pope. Which means that with an empty seat for so long you essentially have no Church. Only direct divine revelation from God to appoint a new Pope as Christ appointed Peter would suffice. anything else would have only as a solid a claim as say Mormonism. You would be talking about the reestablishment of apostolic succession.

If there's no Pope to pass the papacy on as in earliest day... and no valid Bishops to elect a Pope; how would and empty See be filled if it was empty so long that all valid Bishops died and all remaining Bishops are appointed by invalid popes who could not appoint valid Bishops.

The only answer would be by direct action of God. but such a thing would be through private Revelation which is not binding on everyone to accept.

Any theory claiming that the see is vscant this long needs to come up with a plausible answer for this dilemma.

 

[Davidnic]

I can actually only think of one legitimate method where the seat could be filled after this long. And it's highly unlikely to say the least.

Orthodoxy would have to admit that Rome was correct and then call a general Council of the church. Then those Bishops who maintain succession from the Apostles would elect a new Pope.

Which practically speaking will be a highly unlikely scenario.