Sedevecantism Continued

[Meowzltov]

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.

Private revelation is not good enough. It would break the chain of laying on of hands, and lose apostolic succession. Isn't this what we hold against Protestants?

 

[Davidnic]

Private revelation is not good enough. It would break the chain of laying on of hands, and lose apostolic succession. Isn't this what we hold against Protestants?

Yep. Even if someone would argue that the Bishops are valid but illicit they would still have no means of restoring status.

So it is really something that those who maintain vacancy need to answer.

 

[John Luze]

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

I am aware that there was never a pope Joan, I was using that as an example. IF that ever happened, because we can imagine a case in where all of the cardinals were deceived, it would not make that woman a valid pope, even if it was a perfectly by the books election by the cardinals, the person would not be a valid pope. So although all of the post-Conciliar claimants to the Papacy appear to have gone through a legitimate election, they would not be popes due to their own personal flaws.

 

[John Luze]

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

Heresy is any contradiction to the Catholic faith. There are different levels of heresy and culpability, Formal and Public being the worst. Open Heart, the saying by Francis I that you have attached to your messages is an example of the aforementioned type of heresy. "God never abandoned His covenant with Israel." This text is directly opposed to the solemn dogmatic definition of Pope Eugenius III and the Ecumenical Council of Florence, and the doctrine taught by the supreme magisterium of Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo Primum, set forth repeatedly and explicitly citing the definition of Florence, that the Mosaic covenant has been "revoked" and "abrogated". That is heresy, and heretics cannot be pope.

 

[John Luze]

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.

Sedevacantists would say that there are still valid bishops being ordained. The lack of a pope would not prevent the consecration of bishops in extreme necessity. The lack of a valid rite, which is what Sedevacantists believe about the 1968 rite, would prevent the consecration of bishops. So there are still valid bishops around today. Monsignor Charles Journet, who I quoted in an earlier post, believed that the power to elect a pope would fall to the remaining bishops. So we have a possible election mechanism there, it is not certain, however. As I have said though, the lack of a solution does not show a lack of a problem.
I know it seems unlikely, almost impossible really, that we will ever have another pope. Does this disprove Sedevacantism? Or does it show that something much worse is coming? I cannot even count the number of approved Church apparitions and prophecies that touch on this matter. The Bible even talks of a great apostasy from the faith and false teachers that would deceive even the elect in the end times. So I wouldn't say that Sedevacantism is out of the realm of possibility, and when looking at what the Bible says about the apostasy and false teachers, as well as what the various prophecies of the Church have to say about false popes and teachings; I think Sedevacantism is the best explanation for what is happening today.

 

[John Luze]

Private revelation is not good enough. It would break the chain of laying on of hands, and lose apostolic succession. Isn't this what we hold against Protestants?

There is still valid apostolic succession. Bishops and priests are still being ordained in the Rite of Holy Orders and Episcopal Consecration (as opposed to the 1968 Rite). St. Athanasius once said, "Even if the number of Catholics faithful to tradition were reduced to a handful and one priest, they would still be the ones who were the True Church of Christ." I think we are experiencing something similar here today, but thankfully we have multiple priests and bishops.

 

[John Luze]

Yep. Even if someone would argue that the Bishops are valid but illicit they would still have no means of restoring status.

So it is really something that those who maintain vacancy need to answer.

I would say Sedevacantist Bishops are both valid and licit given the situation today, and there have been canon law commentaries on this matter that would agree.

 

[Meowzltov]

I know it seems unlikely, almost impossible really, that we will ever have another pope.

The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

 

[mea kulpa]

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.

How about something similar with the sspx instead?

 

[Davidnic]

I would say Sedevacantist Bishops are both valid and licit given the situation today, and there have been canon law commentaries on this matter that would agree.

The commentaries I see that say that engage in all sorts of mental gymnastics to get to both valid and licit.

Since those Bishops actually lack any ability to exercise their office according to canon law they can't be.

Basically what you have is break away groups pretending to be the true Church claiming validity. Mormons in Catholic vestments with their own version of the great apostasy.

 

[John Luze]

The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I'm afraid you may misunderstand what is meant by the term "gates of hell". The Church has made clear that the gates of hell refer to heresy. Just two examples, of many, is when Pope Vigiilius in 553 explicitly stated that the gates of hell are the "death-dealing tongues of heretics". Pope St. Leo IX said that the gates of hell are "the disputation of heretics".
Christ promised that it would be the office of the Papacy that would prevent the gates of hell from prevailing. This is not a promise that we will always have pope, because obviously there have been months and even years between the death of one pope and the election of another. Remember, the pope is the visible head of the Church, but Christ has always been and will always be the invisible head of the Church, who rules through His vicar when one is present.
The promise of Christ deals with heresy. The Church will never teach heresy, for if She did, how could She possibly save souls? The Papacy is the most visible and concrete expression of this. Union with the See of Rome is the rule of Catholics. Now I know that may seem counter-intuitive for a Sedevacantist, but let me explain.
How could union with Francis I (or his predecessors) possibly be the rule of faith? When was the last time Francis I affirmed any sort of Catholic teaching against the many errors of today? When was the last time he affirmed the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation? How many times has he praised non-Catholic religions, but called Catholics "obstinate in their doctrine" (faithful to tradition) idolaters? How much has he scandalized the faith by partaking in non-Catholic prayer services, promoting religious indifferentism? What about his upcoming commemoration of the Protestant Reformation, is that a rule of faith? What about his opening the door to the divorce and remarried to receive communion (it is in the footnotes of Amoris Laetitia, almost got away with it)? I could go on and on. The point is, if this man is supposed to prevent the gates of hell from prevailing, he is not doing a good job.
Sedevacantism is the only way to keep Christ's promise intact. The Church still exists, the Papacy still exists, they are just "in eclipse" as Our Lady of La Salette put it. The Church (Papacy included) has still not taught error, has still not allowed heresy to prevail. If the post-Conciliar claimants to the Papacy are legitimate, well then the very thing that Christ instituted to prevent the gates of hell from prevailing....has allowed the gates of hell to prevail.

 

[Meowzltov]

I'm afraid you may misunderstand what is meant by the term "gates of hell". The Church has made clear that the gates of hell refer to heresy. Just two examples, of many, is when Pope Vigiilius in 553 explicitly stated that the gates of hell are the "death-dealing tongues of heretics". Pope St. Leo IX said that the gates of hell are "the disputation of heretics".
Christ promised that it would be the office of the Papacy that would prevent the gates of hell from prevailing. This is not a promise that we will always have pope, because obviously there have been months and even years between the death of one pope and the election of another. Remember, the pope is the visible head of the Church, but Christ has always been and will always be the invisible head of the Church, who rules through His vicar when one is present.
The promise of Christ deals with heresy. The Church will never teach heresy, for if She did, how could She possibly save souls? The Papacy is the most visible and concrete expression of this. Union with the See of Rome is the rule of Catholics. Now I know that may seem counter-intuitive for a Sedevacantist, but let me explain.
How could union with Francis I (or his predecessors) possibly be the rule of faith? When was the last time Francis I affirmed any sort of Catholic teaching against the many errors of today? When was the last time he affirmed the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation? How many times has he praised non-Catholic religions, but called Catholics "obstinate in their doctrine" (faithful to tradition) idolaters? How much has he scandalized the faith by partaking in non-Catholic prayer services, promoting religious indifferentism? What about his upcoming commemoration of the Protestant Reformation, is that a rule of faith? What about his opening the door to the divorce and remarried to receive communion (it is in the footnotes of Amoris Laetitia, almost got away with it)? I could go on and on. The point is, if this man is supposed to prevent the gates of hell from prevailing, he is not doing a good job.
Sedevacantism is the only way to keep Christ's promise intact. The Church still exists, the Papacy still exists, they are just "in eclipse" as Our Lady of La Salette put it. The Church (Papacy included) has still not taught error, has still not allowed heresy to prevail. If the post-Conciliar claimants to the Papacy are legitimate, well then the very thing that Christ instituted to prevent the gates of hell from prevailing....has allowed the gates of hell to prevail.

I believe that the gates of hell prevailing refers to the collapse of the Catholic Church. The most obvious way for that to happen is for heresy to be taught. But it's not the only way. To be permanently without a Pope is another way.

I hope we can disagree agreeably. I have no quarrel with Traditionalists -- I am far more comfortable around you guys than Progressives. But I myself am not one of you, even though I really do enjoy the Latin Mass. I have no problems with Vatican 2, although I think some awful things have been done "in the spirit of Vatican 2." I have no problems with interfaith dialogue or seeing that there is some truth in non-Christian religions. And the only thing I have against Pope Francis is that he tends to be unclear, especially when he speaks off the cuff, and it causes a lot of confusion for us. But he seems to call into check the extremes, while simultaneously welcoming them into the fold. In the same way, he is against sin (reiterating the Church's teachings on marriage), while reaching out in love and mercy to the sinner (the divorced and remarried or gays). I think he is worthy of his name.

 

[John Luze]

The commentaries I see that say that engage in all sorts of mental gymnastics to get to both valid and licit.

Since those Bishops actually lack any ability to exercise their office according to canon law they can't be.

Basically what you have is break away groups pretending to be the true Church claiming validity. Mormons in Catholic vestments with their own version of the great apostasy.

I'm not sure what is considered mental gymnastics for you, but I hardly see it that way. I am sure you are referring to the lack of a papal mandate (decreed by Pope Pius XII) when it comes to Sedevacantist bishops being consecrated, so that would make them valid but illicit.
However, how would you suppose that a bishop get papal mandate, when there is no pope? It would be begging the question if you say that it must come from Francis I, because his legitimacy is the very thing in question. Someone who is not a pope cannot give a papal mandate. So what are we to do? Cease Apostolic Succession? Or is there provisions that deal with this very matter?
St. Thomas Aquinas defined law as such, "an ordinance of right reason made for the common good promulgated by one who has authority in that society." Now a law may cease being a law in two ways, either by the legislator abrogating the law (extrinsic cessation) or, due to extreme circumstances, the law is no longer for the common good (intrinsic cessation).
As Archbishop Amleto Giovanni Cicognani, Professor of Canon Law at the Pontifical Institute of Canon and Civil Law in Rome, taught in his commentary: “A law ceases intrinsically when its purpose ceases; the law ceases of itself... the law ceases extrinsically when it is revoked by the Superior...Relative to the first way: The end (either of its purpose or its cause) of the law ceases adequately when all its purposes cease. The purpose of the law ceases contrariwise when an injurious law becomes either unjust or impossible of observance.”
The underlying principle in Canon Law is that the ultimate law is the salvation of souls. In Pope Pius XII's day, being that there was a legitimate pope that could give papal mandates, his law ensured no one would be led astray by false bishops, particularly from the National Church of China. Now-a-days, however, his law would lead to the cessation of Apostolic Succession, which would be disastrous to the salvation of souls; once again assuming that there is no pope as Sedevacantists claim.
Pope Pius XII stated in his address to the clerical students of Rome on June 24, 1939: “Canon law likewise is directed to the salvation of souls; and the purpose of all its regulations and laws is that men may live and die in the holiness given them by the grace of God.”
So if Francis I is a true pope, then yes Sedevacantist bishops are illicit. If he is not a true pope, however, then they are perfectly licit. So the question remains then, is Francis I a true pope? This is a question that cannot be answered by talking about licit or illicit bishops, because both answers presume the very thing that is in question.
Now that I think of it, I guess being a Mormon in the eyes of the Conciliar Church wouldn't be too bad. I mean it has to at least be better than, say, the Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus or any number of non-Catholic religions that they love to praise constantly, at least we're Christian right? And it is surely better than those pesky Catholics who commit the sin of idolatry by being obstinate in their doctrine, it must be them that the Lord despises in the Bible, definitely not the pagans. I think we might be able to fit in after all...

 

[Davidnic]

So would you maintain that the core argument for the Vacancy lies in Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio? Are you arguing they are ineligible for election, lose office once elected or both? If so either...who judges public and manifest heresy? You would also have to answer two common objections.

1. Abrogation of most of the document in 1917, which is arguably possible because it is disciplinary (Which even a bull can be depending on the intention).

2. The election of Pius II would be in opposition to this which would mean that Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio was not affirming existing truth but falls into a lesser role.

So even if the first is disputed, those who maintain the point must explain how Pius II is a valid Pope given his endorsement of heresy prior to election.

 

[John Luze]

Abrogation of most of the document in 1917,

Are you referring to the 1917 Code of Canon Law?

 

[John Luze]

So would you maintain that the core argument for the Vacancy lies in Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio? Are you arguing they are ineligible for election, lose office once elected or both? If so either...who judges public and manifest heresy? You would also have to answer two common objections.

1. Abrogation of most of the document in 1917, which is arguably possible because it is disciplinary (Which even a bull can be depending on the intention).

2. The election of Pius II would be in opposition to this which would mean that Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio was not affirming existing truth but falls into a lesser role.

So even if the first is disputed, those who maintain the point must explain how Pius II is a valid Pope given his endorsement of heresy prior to election.

Would you happen to know where I could read Pope Pius II's In Minoribus? I had never heard this argument before so I started doing some research and I found references to a document of his where he retracts errors of his youth. I'm just curious as to what the specific errors are and just how young was he (Catholic in error or formal heretic)? And if these were already defined dogmas of the Church.

I do take issue with your reasoning that, given the situation of Pius II, Pope Paul IV's Encyclical would not be affirming existing truth and falls into a lesser role. No Catholic would say that the definition of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 did not affirm an existing truth, yet many saints, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, did not believe in the Immaculate Conception. The Church did not declare these saints heretics by any means, because She had not yet defined the dogma during the time they lived. Granted, it may be different when talking about the office that someone holds, and not just their beliefs on an undefined doctrine, so maybe I'm wrong.

Now, I would say that heretics are prevented by Divine Law from even being Catholic, let alone pope. I think a clearer understanding of Pius II's situation is needed for me to give a better answer, so I hope to be able to read that document of his, I will keep looking.

 

[Davidnic]

The problem would be even if he would have rejected his errors after election...the position you have indicated would maintain he was not Pope at election. But the Church does not count him anti-pope. Now that could be because of manifest heresy...formal vs informal...issues of culpability..ect.

I read the history in the seminary. As far as an online source I am not if there is one. But I can look. The conversation has made me think of that era in Church History and I just requested: The commentaries of Pope Pius II (1458-1464) and the crisis of the fifteenth-century papacy.

I work in a research Library, it should be here in a day or two.

 

[Davidnic]

What I am saying is that all Papal Bulls have weight but some are disciplinary and that does not mean they are irrevocable or unchangeable. We need to look at the exact document as well as the intent. Was it set up to reaffirm an eternal truth or was it an election document. I have seen it argued both ways. So all of this goes into the conversation.

But what is at issue is that if the Church, before and after Paul IV does not consider Pius II to be anti-pope....then you have to take a very long look at Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio.

So I think two things are needed. A deeper look at Pius II and a closer look at the intent of Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio.

Perhaps as we look for some full copies on Pius II we can discuss this debate that is available:

http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.co...93-cum-ex-apostolatus-and-loss-of-office.html

It does also articulate my belief (as well as the belief of many others) of the abrogation of Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio. Remember Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio was never, as other bulls (though not all), included in any dogmatic handbooks of the Church. The idea that Bull=Divine Law is not entirely correct. You have to look at the history of the Papal Bull as a concept until the 14th century then after.

 

[Davidnic]

I also have requested: Reject Aeneas, accept Pius : selected letters of Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini (Pope Pius II)

That seems to contain a copy as well as much background.

 

[John Luze]

The problem would be even if he would have rejected his errors after election...the position you have indicated would maintain he was not Pope at election. But the Church does not count him anti-pope. Now that could be because of manifest heresy...formal vs informal...issues of culpability..ect.

I read the history in the seminary. As far as an online source I am not if there is one. But I can look. The conversation has made me think of that era in Church History and I just requested: The commentaries of Pope Pius II (1458-1464) and the crisis of the fifteenth-century papacy.

I work in a research Library, it should be here in a day or two.

Thank you, let me know what you find.