Sedevecantism Continued

[John Luze]

S

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.

So lets say for the sake of the argument that Paul IV's Bull was abrogated, does this mean that a heretic could in fact be pope? I find this hard to believe being that heretics cannot even be considered Catholic.

 

[Rhamiel]

S

So lets say for the sake of the argument that Paul IV's Bull was abrogated, does this mean that a heretic could in fact be pope? I find this hard to believe being that heretics cannot even be considered Catholic.

wait, why would that make him a heretic?

 

[Davidnic]

S

So lets say for the sake of the argument that Paul IV's Bull was abrogated, does this mean that a heretic could in fact be pope? I find this hard to believe being that heretics cannot even be considered Catholic.

Well before the sake of argument...what about the actual argument on the applicability of the bull to the vacant claims? There is a strong case that the bull can not be applied as those proponents do. So before we move on we should deal with each point.

Paul IV bull was raised as a point on heresy and the Papacy. Some use it to argue for the lack of valid Popes both after and before election. But the case for after is very shaky and the case for before only slightly less so. When you take into account the reason Paul IV was writing it and the force of law it has...it was abrogated. So before we move on for the sake of argument...is the bull applicable to way those who support a vacant see use it? Anyone outside of that mindset would mostly argue no it is not. That there are problems using it in that context due to intent of the Pope who wrote it as well as the force of the document itself.

The case of heresy of specific Popes in particular will rest on different arguments. As will the general issue of heresy. But first...what about the counter arguments to the applicability of Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio the way Sedevecantism applies it?

 

[Davidnic]

Once we deal with the applicability of Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio we can deal with the issue of formal or material heresy as opposed to either propositio theologice erronea (theological error) or a teaching approaching heresy. Then we can deal with the consequences of such things.

 

[John Luze]

wait, why would that make him a heretic?

Who are you referring to?

 

[John Luze]

Once we deal with the applicability of Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio we can deal with the issue of formal or material heresy as opposed to either propositio theologice erronea (theological error) or a teaching approaching heresy. Then we can deal with the consequences of such things.

Sorry, but it's about time for bed here (Australia). I am really enjoying the conversation and appreciate all of the input! I will begin my next post in the morning.

 

[victorinus]

I must be a conservative -
fish wanted to know what I was doing in the liberal thread -
I loved john paul -
john 23 not so much -
the seat is not vacant -
I love francis

 

[Davidnic]

Sorry, but it's about time for bed here (Australia). I am really enjoying the conversation and appreciate all of the input! I will begin my next post in the morning.

Have a good night. I am a stay at home dad and I work overnight in a research library. So you will see me on at all hours. Depending on what my kids, wife and the students need I may be more or less active any given day/night. But can take our time discussing it all. And even if we end up disagreeing we are talking because we love the Church and Christ.

 

[John Luze]

Once we deal with the applicability of Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio we can deal with the issue of formal or material heresy as opposed to either propositio theologice erronea (theological error) or a teaching approaching heresy. Then we can deal with the consequences of such things.

I still have not seen sufficient evidence to say that Cum Ex was abrogated. If you are referring to Pope Pius XII's Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis support your claim, then I would say you are mistaken. As far as I am aware, this is the statement that is most often used against Sedevacantists from that document: "None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff."

The Pope makes it clear that he is referring to ecclesiastical punishments inflicted on somebody, so this would deal with heresy as a crime against the Church. Heresy, however, not only deals with ecclesiastical law but divine law. So this brings me to the point that even if it is not clear by the words Pope Pius XII used, it would be clear just by the nature of Divine Law, that Pope Pius XII is not saying that heretics can be pope. Popes are not able to change the natural law, let alone the Divine Law. So that's where one could argue that the abrogation of Cum Ex is irrelevant, for even if it was (as far as the ecclesiastical implications are concerned), heretics would be prevented by Divine Law from being pope.

"If indeed such a situation would happen, he [the Roman Pontiff] would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority." Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Rome: Marietti 1950. 1:312, 316. My emphasis.

"Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory [Minus dico] because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged...In such a case it should be said of him: 'If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men'." Pope Innocent III Sermo 4.

"Theologians respond the same way. We cannot prove the absolute impossibility of such an event [absolutam repugnatiam facti]. For this reason, theologians commonly concede that the Roman Pontiff, if he should fall into manifest heresy, would no longer be a member of the Church, and therefore could neither be called its visible head." Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae. Madrid: Ediciones Studium 1959. 371.

I could provide many more quotes, but I think it makes the point that it has nothing to do with ecclesiastical law, so not with the abrogation of any document, that a heretic cannot be the pope. So now, as you said, I think we should move on to if the post-Conciliar popes can be shown to be heretics. Would you agree?

 

[Davidnic]

I don't think we can move on just yet because I don't think you've addressed all the issues concerning can a pope be deemed heretic without being judged and would the Pope cease to be Pope without such a judgment.

What would you reply be to the economy objection to the vacant seat expressed here:

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/our-replies-to-fr.html?m=1

Also while we're talking about all this we may want to consider as this conversation goes on structuring our conversation as a formal debate at some point. That would put all the information of both sides in an easy-to-follow format. I couldn't do it immediately since the beginning of the semester is hectic but it is an option that bears consideration.

But until then we can continue replying to each other here as our personal time permits.

At the moment I'm putting my son to bed that's why I didn't write a longer post and just give you a link.

 

[Davidnic]

Again I thank you for a cordial conversation between two brothers in Christ who love the Church. Even though it is obvious we disagree I am glad we can have a conversation.

 

[John Luze]

I don't think we can move on just yet because I don't think you've addressed all the issues concerning can a pope be deemed heretic without being judged and would the Pope cease to be Pope without such a judgment.

What would you reply be to the economy objection to the vacant seat expressed here:

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/our-replies-to-fr.html?m=1

Also while we're talking about all this we may want to consider as this conversation goes on structuring our conversation as a formal debate at some point. That would put all the information of both sides in an easy-to-follow format. I couldn't do it immediately since the beginning of the semester is hectic but it is an option that bears consideration.

But until then we can continue replying to each other here as our personal time permits.

At the moment I'm putting my son to bed that's why I didn't write a longer post and just give you a link.

I believe that I have understood the arguments correctly in the article, if not, please let me know. Here is a link to an article that I think answers the arguments used in the article you posted.

http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/judging-deposing-true-pope.htm

The article will do a much better job at explaining the points, so I will just give a summary. Essentially, a common error that Mr. Salza commits is only referencing pre-Vatican I documents when it comes to the issue of judging the Pope, when it was still theologically acceptable to hold those views. Vatican I settled a lot of that debate by laying down the principle that the First See is judged by no one, without exception. The only exception (not really an exception though, but altogether a different matter) is the case of heresy because by heresy someone would not even be a pope anymore, so it would not be somebody judging a pope, but a heretic.

In the article you posted, I am not sure how they come to the conclusion that Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi was referring to the crime of heresy (ecclesiastical law), and not the sin of heresy (divine law), would you be able to elaborate on that at all?

Would you also be able to elaborate on the view, as stated in the article, that no reference anywhere is made to the loss of office due to heresy being a matter of divine law, using the quotes I provided in my last post as just some of the counter-evidence?

 

[Davidnic]

Hopefully later today I'll be able to elaborate on the points you bring into question. It's Park day with the kids and work overnight. So I might not get to it until around work time which might be right around when you're on so that might be good.

Quickly though I often see the charge to refute some of the quotes used by Sedevacantism that they are out of context or incomplete. So it will take further looking at primary sources to look at that.
I think it would also be good for us to list points of debate.

Like:

1. Is Sedevacantism Possible over a long period of time?
2. What is the status and intent of Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio?
3. Sedevacantism and the four marks of the Church
4. Have recent Popes been manifest heretics

So perhaps a more formal debate that was structured would be good, broken into four parts and dealing with each of these 4 points.

We do have a formal debate area: http://www.christianforums.com/forums/formal-debate.1127/

Perhaps it would be a better format to keep us on point before moving to new ones step by step. At the start of the semester I am busy with new students issues and my own homeschooling for my daughter. But in a few weeks we might be able to really dive into this.

Of course we can continue casually talking here until a formal debate if we choose to do that.

 

[John Luze]

I've never done a formal debate so I'm not sure how it works, but I'd be willing to try it out. I'm freed up for a while so I can wait until the formal debate if you'd like.

 

[Davidnic]

We can play it by ear. The last of the books on Pope Pius II came in after I left work today so I'll probably swing by and pick it up tomorrow. It's actually a pretty fascinating period in church history.

 

[Basil the Great]

I am not a Catholic, but I have read a fair amount of material re: this topic. To be honest, I have mixed feelings about Sedavacantism. As a non-Catholic, I like the post Vatican II Church very much. However, based upon my extensive reading of Catholic history, I can understand and truly do appreciate the concerns of Traditional Catholics. Still, I find it very hard to follow the SSPX folks from an intellectual standpoint. They acknowledge the Vatican II Popes, even while they disagree with the Vatican II teachings on Ecumenism and Religious Liberty. To say that the Vatican II Council was not a Dogmatic Council and only a Pastoral Council and that therefore it's teachings are not binding, which is the SSPX position, seems like splitting hairs to me. Still, I can understand the SSPX position and it is easier to hold it and be against the two Vatican II teachings, than it is to be a Sedavacantist and reject all Popes since Vatican II. Meanwhile, the Sedavacantist position is more dramatic. Not only do they reject some Vatican II teachings, but they also do not accept the Vatican II Popes as valid Popes.

Regardless of the SSPX or the Sedavacantists, it seems extremely unlikely to me that the clock will ever be turned back and that the Church will at some point in the future renounce the Vatican II teachings that some believe are heretical and not in accordance with the Pre-Vatican II Magisterium. The only way that I can see that this might possibly happen is if the Church effectively splits in a major way, like it did with the Protestant Revolt, over some very contentious issue. However, even a major split would not necessarily mean that Traditionalist group would renounce some of the Vatican II teachings and/or declare the Vatican II Popes to be invalid, though such could be a possibility.

My questions for those in this Forum who do reject the Vatican II teachings on Ecumenism and Religious Liberty are:
(1) Do you believe that the Church will eventually renounce said teachings?
(2) What kind of crisis will it take for the Church to make such a dramatic move as to reject two teachings that were pronounced by an Ecumenical Council, headed by a Pope?

P.S. - For what it is worth, even though I like the Vatican II Church very much, I totally understand why some of you have grave concerns about some of the Vatican II teachings. If I had been raised a Catholic, I do not know how I would have responded to Vatican II and it's teachings.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Actually, it says in Vatican II itself that not everything in it is binding. VII basically says that only the things mentioned in it which had already been binding are binding. This behooves a Catholic to know which doctrines were binding before VII. And although VII is called "dogmatic," VII says that its purpose is pastoral.

 

[mea kulpa]

I think we are already seeing a turning away from vatican 2 or at the very least the spirit of V2 as it is now beyond obvious the damaging effects and "bad fruit" V2 or at the very least the spirit of V2 has brought. So i think the current crisis is the kind of crisis that will see change towards V2