The Sedevacante Dilemma - Some Comments on a Discussion
Aug 3, 2019 17:05:15 GMT -5
Voxxkowalski, Caillin, and 1 more like this
Post by Pacelli on Aug 3, 2019 17:05:15 GMT -5
Someone has sent me the following exchange that took place on the comment section on the Novus Ordo Watch site under the article “Five Novus Ordo Prelates release “Declarations of Truths” in tacit Rebuke to Francis,” linked at end of quote, which can be found HERE and has asked me to comment on it.
I thought it better to discuss the matter publicly on here so others may add input as well, so with the correspondents permission I am putting it on the forum with my thoughts.
The poster “Daniel’s” comments are as in the original marked with >><<
The comments by NOW watch follow “Daniel’s” comments.
My comments in blue
I thought it better to discuss the matter publicly on here so others may add input as well, so with the correspondents permission I am putting it on the forum with my thoughts.
The poster “Daniel’s” comments are as in the original marked with >><<
The comments by NOW watch follow “Daniel’s” comments.
My comments in blue
>> In reality the R&R's are refusing submission to a modernist Novus Ordo Pope not a Catholic Pope. <<
That's true - they are refusing submission to a non-Pope. However, that is somewhat accidental, since they hold him to be the Pope and even insist that he is the true Vicar of Christ. As sin is chiefly in the will, it is true to say that they are preaching the *sin* of schism and asking others to join them in that sin. The fact they somehow justify this in their minds is not relevant to that fact.
It’s a debatable fact as to whether these people are sinning. A mortal sin, and this would be mortal if it were a sin, has three conditions. The condition in question here is whether the person understands he is sinning, whether the person or persons in question actually understands the Catholic teaching on this matter.
If you told an SSPX priest who believes in Francis’ Papal claim that he is leading Catholics to Hell by leading them into serious sin, he would be disgusted by the allegation. To err on a complex matter is hardly leading someone into sin. To think otherwise is to separate oneself from the reality of our unprecedented situation.
In the western schism, was St. Vincent Ferrer “leading souls to Hell through serious sin,” by acknowledging the false papal claimant Benedict XIII who was objectively a schismatic? To apply this standard to him, some might say that he was culpable for not studying enough on the Divine and ecclesiastical law regarding papal elections, how to identify a Pope, and logically to the next step of how to identify a schismatic. The same argument could be made against all Catholics of that time period who erred on who the Pope was.
Some may argue that the today’s situation in not identical, and I agree, but there are similarities. The matter of the precise mechanism of how a heretical pope can be judged as such and then a new Pope elected in a situation such as ours is still not a settled matter. We know that the malicious profession of public heresy causes the loss of membership in the Church, but how do the proper office holders in the Church act in this situation, where it is not clear as to what to do or who is supposed to do it? Should it be the clerics of Rome, the remaining hierarchy, or both? But, how are we certain all of the Cardinals are dead or have defected? Any election that happens if Cardinals are still alive and are Catholic would be illegal.
Some Catholics are waiting for the Church’s officeholders to authoritatively sort this out. They remain uncertain that the acts of these Popes were correctly promulgated and incorrectly believe that since papal infallibility was not invoked by having the conditions met, that the teachings of these “Popes” did not cause a defection, and that such a situation is possible in the Church.
In matters of contention such as this, the charitable way to resolve this is to state the correct Catholic position, but not judge one’s neighbor as guilty of sin or schism, rather, to bring the matter to the legitimate authority of the Church as soon as that is possible. The government of the Church resides solely with the hierarchy, the Pope and the jurisdictional bishops and there is no other lawful authority that can step in.
>> Unfortunately they have redefined the Papacy to make it 'work' for their erroneous thinking. Can we call them schismatic when they have a totally erroneous understanding of the Catholic Papacy? <<
If they have redefined the dogma of the Papacy, then they are heretics. Most schismatics are heretics as well.
The last I checked, heresy must be a direct denial of a dogma. I haven’t seen this with SSPX. I would like to see statements indicating such if one wants to accuse them of heresy.
>> However, this is a logical conclusion based on objective observations regarding Bergoglio and sound reason but I cannot elevate my objective logical (or theological) conclusions to that of a Catholic dogma to which all Catholics must submit. <<
But no one is doing that. That conclusion is not a dogma -- by definition, it cannot be -- but it is a so-called dogmatic fact. At the very least, it is a necessary conclusion based on manifestly true premises, one of which is a dogma (the Papacy).
But, where has the Church authoritatively made this a dogmatic fact? In order for this fact to be binding one must hear from the Church, through the Pope, who by his authoritative action of condemning Paul VI and his successors as heretics, excommunicates, and usurpers, can then be certain of this fact as all would be bound to accept it by the judgment if the Church.Until such a time as this, the status of this truth is not authoritatively settled, and is only binding to the individual conscience that understands the principles involved. Only the lawful hierarchy can bind the flock. The matter at hand is not strictly speaking about what the truth is, it is about the status of the truth.
Just because a truth has a status less than that of dogma, doesn't mean it's optional. The necessity of drawing that conclusion arises from the soundness of the syllogism as well as from the fact that any alternative conclusion which would have to be embraced is heretical.
True, it’s not optional, but it only binds those who have formed a moral certainty based on their own judgment. No one who is not commissioned by God can bind another Catholic to agree with the soundness of one’s well formed syllogism on an unsettled matter. You may be right, and in this case, I agree that you are right, but being right does not allow one to force others to believe you are right, thereby binding their consciences under pain of sin. To argue otherwise turns the entire Divine Constitution of the Church upside down, as all members of the Church would then be on an equal level as the Pope and the bishops.
>> I am not a 'dogmatic sedevacantist'. Are you? <<
Yes. In the sense just explained.
>> Can any traditional Catholic dogmatically declare that Bergoglio is not the Pope? <<
No, because in order for it to qualify as dogma, it would have to be divinely revealed, that is, be part of the Deposit of Faith handed to the Apostles, which it obviously isn't. But that means that not even a true Pope could make it a dogma. The best that could be done is make it an infallible pronouncement that is not dogmatic, such as Pope Leo XIII's declaration of the invalidity of Anglican orders.
It wouldn’t be a dogma, but it will be a dogmatic fact that binds if the Pope settles this matter in the future, Until then, we are stuck with the status quo and the lack of God’s commissioned lawful authority on earth making these facts authoritatively and publicly clear.
>> Until then it is just a matter of opinion, that is objective reality whether we like it or not. <<
That is a great error, one that is very prevalent even among many sedevacantists: that unless something is a dogma, it is just an opinion. That is false, absolutely false, and easily refuted by any Catholic dogmatic manual. There are a lot of different grades of certainty between dogma and opinion.
This is a mischaracterization. We are not here dealing with a dogma at all. Is there anything is Scripture or Tradition that names Paul VI or the others to be heretics? Of course not. Can we identify a heretic prior to the judgment of the Church? Yes. Is that judgment made by individuals, who lack the power to bind the flock? No. If the Church through the Pope judges the matter is it then binding on Catholics to adhere to that judgment? Yes. When the Pope makes such as judgment will it then be a binding dogmatic fact that Paul VI was not a Pope? Yes, because since the Church has authoritatively settled the matter, and to hold the contrary position would lead to heresy. So why is it not a dogmatic fact now? The Church has not by its authority settled the matter, which then binds Catholics to the first matter, which logically then binds on the secondary matters, as the first matter is now settled by authority.
>> In the meantime the best we can do is to hold fast to Catholic tradition no matter what the cost, no compromises. <<
We must do that, but this Tradition you agree we must hold fast to includes the Catholic teaching on the Papacy.
Yes of course, and I will add that we must hold fast the belief that Our Lord established a Church and in that Church he established his Divine Constitution which can never change.
>> I just learned about the 'Papa dubious, Papa nullus' principle and it seems to me that the R&R's need to learn to practice this principle. <<
Until the R&Rs even use that argument, it's irrelevant for sedevacantists. There is nothing doubtful about Bergoglio's status. He is the Vicar of the Antichrist, so to speak.
But, who declares a doubtful Pope as not a Pope? What happens when some Catholics say the claimant is not doubtful and others say he is doubtful? Who binds Catholics to the judgment they have made? Until a future Pope settles such a matter, then the matter remains authoritatively unresolved.
>> It is this principle that helped the laity deal with having three papal claimants during the Great Western Schism lasting 39 years. They were all wondering at the time which 'Pope' was the Pope? Who do they submit to? They held fast to tradition until it was eventually sorted out as it will be in our current situation. <<
But that was easy to do because all the claimants were public Catholics, and any of them *could have been* Pope. That situation is completely different from what we have today.
It’s different, but there are similarities. Not everyone is convinced that Paul VI and his successors were and are public heretics, Some believe that it’s how their words are interpreted. Also, in today’s situation, we are dealing with undeclared heretics, not declared, so Catholics have not been bound by authority to believe these men are heretics, in the absence of authority, we rely on our own judgment to form moral certainty, and our judgments bind no one else. Catholics may differ as to whether these “Popes” are heretics or whether they have lost their office.
We are in a similar situation to the western schism in that the authority has not settled the matter that is dividing the Church. Our situation in some respects is more grave in that it is becoming increasingly harder to identify who the office holders are who can end this crisis by declaring the state of sede vacante and then electing a new Pope. At least during the western schism, it was always clear that there was a functioning and clearly identifiable hierarchy, it just wasn’t clear which hierarchy, Pope and bishops, was the lawful one.
That's true - they are refusing submission to a non-Pope. However, that is somewhat accidental, since they hold him to be the Pope and even insist that he is the true Vicar of Christ. As sin is chiefly in the will, it is true to say that they are preaching the *sin* of schism and asking others to join them in that sin. The fact they somehow justify this in their minds is not relevant to that fact.
It’s a debatable fact as to whether these people are sinning. A mortal sin, and this would be mortal if it were a sin, has three conditions. The condition in question here is whether the person understands he is sinning, whether the person or persons in question actually understands the Catholic teaching on this matter.
If you told an SSPX priest who believes in Francis’ Papal claim that he is leading Catholics to Hell by leading them into serious sin, he would be disgusted by the allegation. To err on a complex matter is hardly leading someone into sin. To think otherwise is to separate oneself from the reality of our unprecedented situation.
In the western schism, was St. Vincent Ferrer “leading souls to Hell through serious sin,” by acknowledging the false papal claimant Benedict XIII who was objectively a schismatic? To apply this standard to him, some might say that he was culpable for not studying enough on the Divine and ecclesiastical law regarding papal elections, how to identify a Pope, and logically to the next step of how to identify a schismatic. The same argument could be made against all Catholics of that time period who erred on who the Pope was.
Some may argue that the today’s situation in not identical, and I agree, but there are similarities. The matter of the precise mechanism of how a heretical pope can be judged as such and then a new Pope elected in a situation such as ours is still not a settled matter. We know that the malicious profession of public heresy causes the loss of membership in the Church, but how do the proper office holders in the Church act in this situation, where it is not clear as to what to do or who is supposed to do it? Should it be the clerics of Rome, the remaining hierarchy, or both? But, how are we certain all of the Cardinals are dead or have defected? Any election that happens if Cardinals are still alive and are Catholic would be illegal.
Some Catholics are waiting for the Church’s officeholders to authoritatively sort this out. They remain uncertain that the acts of these Popes were correctly promulgated and incorrectly believe that since papal infallibility was not invoked by having the conditions met, that the teachings of these “Popes” did not cause a defection, and that such a situation is possible in the Church.
In matters of contention such as this, the charitable way to resolve this is to state the correct Catholic position, but not judge one’s neighbor as guilty of sin or schism, rather, to bring the matter to the legitimate authority of the Church as soon as that is possible. The government of the Church resides solely with the hierarchy, the Pope and the jurisdictional bishops and there is no other lawful authority that can step in.
>> Unfortunately they have redefined the Papacy to make it 'work' for their erroneous thinking. Can we call them schismatic when they have a totally erroneous understanding of the Catholic Papacy? <<
If they have redefined the dogma of the Papacy, then they are heretics. Most schismatics are heretics as well.
The last I checked, heresy must be a direct denial of a dogma. I haven’t seen this with SSPX. I would like to see statements indicating such if one wants to accuse them of heresy.
>> However, this is a logical conclusion based on objective observations regarding Bergoglio and sound reason but I cannot elevate my objective logical (or theological) conclusions to that of a Catholic dogma to which all Catholics must submit. <<
But no one is doing that. That conclusion is not a dogma -- by definition, it cannot be -- but it is a so-called dogmatic fact. At the very least, it is a necessary conclusion based on manifestly true premises, one of which is a dogma (the Papacy).
But, where has the Church authoritatively made this a dogmatic fact? In order for this fact to be binding one must hear from the Church, through the Pope, who by his authoritative action of condemning Paul VI and his successors as heretics, excommunicates, and usurpers, can then be certain of this fact as all would be bound to accept it by the judgment if the Church.Until such a time as this, the status of this truth is not authoritatively settled, and is only binding to the individual conscience that understands the principles involved. Only the lawful hierarchy can bind the flock. The matter at hand is not strictly speaking about what the truth is, it is about the status of the truth.
Just because a truth has a status less than that of dogma, doesn't mean it's optional. The necessity of drawing that conclusion arises from the soundness of the syllogism as well as from the fact that any alternative conclusion which would have to be embraced is heretical.
True, it’s not optional, but it only binds those who have formed a moral certainty based on their own judgment. No one who is not commissioned by God can bind another Catholic to agree with the soundness of one’s well formed syllogism on an unsettled matter. You may be right, and in this case, I agree that you are right, but being right does not allow one to force others to believe you are right, thereby binding their consciences under pain of sin. To argue otherwise turns the entire Divine Constitution of the Church upside down, as all members of the Church would then be on an equal level as the Pope and the bishops.
>> I am not a 'dogmatic sedevacantist'. Are you? <<
Yes. In the sense just explained.
>> Can any traditional Catholic dogmatically declare that Bergoglio is not the Pope? <<
No, because in order for it to qualify as dogma, it would have to be divinely revealed, that is, be part of the Deposit of Faith handed to the Apostles, which it obviously isn't. But that means that not even a true Pope could make it a dogma. The best that could be done is make it an infallible pronouncement that is not dogmatic, such as Pope Leo XIII's declaration of the invalidity of Anglican orders.
It wouldn’t be a dogma, but it will be a dogmatic fact that binds if the Pope settles this matter in the future, Until then, we are stuck with the status quo and the lack of God’s commissioned lawful authority on earth making these facts authoritatively and publicly clear.
>> Until then it is just a matter of opinion, that is objective reality whether we like it or not. <<
That is a great error, one that is very prevalent even among many sedevacantists: that unless something is a dogma, it is just an opinion. That is false, absolutely false, and easily refuted by any Catholic dogmatic manual. There are a lot of different grades of certainty between dogma and opinion.
This is a mischaracterization. We are not here dealing with a dogma at all. Is there anything is Scripture or Tradition that names Paul VI or the others to be heretics? Of course not. Can we identify a heretic prior to the judgment of the Church? Yes. Is that judgment made by individuals, who lack the power to bind the flock? No. If the Church through the Pope judges the matter is it then binding on Catholics to adhere to that judgment? Yes. When the Pope makes such as judgment will it then be a binding dogmatic fact that Paul VI was not a Pope? Yes, because since the Church has authoritatively settled the matter, and to hold the contrary position would lead to heresy. So why is it not a dogmatic fact now? The Church has not by its authority settled the matter, which then binds Catholics to the first matter, which logically then binds on the secondary matters, as the first matter is now settled by authority.
>> In the meantime the best we can do is to hold fast to Catholic tradition no matter what the cost, no compromises. <<
We must do that, but this Tradition you agree we must hold fast to includes the Catholic teaching on the Papacy.
Yes of course, and I will add that we must hold fast the belief that Our Lord established a Church and in that Church he established his Divine Constitution which can never change.
>> I just learned about the 'Papa dubious, Papa nullus' principle and it seems to me that the R&R's need to learn to practice this principle. <<
Until the R&Rs even use that argument, it's irrelevant for sedevacantists. There is nothing doubtful about Bergoglio's status. He is the Vicar of the Antichrist, so to speak.
But, who declares a doubtful Pope as not a Pope? What happens when some Catholics say the claimant is not doubtful and others say he is doubtful? Who binds Catholics to the judgment they have made? Until a future Pope settles such a matter, then the matter remains authoritatively unresolved.
>> It is this principle that helped the laity deal with having three papal claimants during the Great Western Schism lasting 39 years. They were all wondering at the time which 'Pope' was the Pope? Who do they submit to? They held fast to tradition until it was eventually sorted out as it will be in our current situation. <<
But that was easy to do because all the claimants were public Catholics, and any of them *could have been* Pope. That situation is completely different from what we have today.
It’s different, but there are similarities. Not everyone is convinced that Paul VI and his successors were and are public heretics, Some believe that it’s how their words are interpreted. Also, in today’s situation, we are dealing with undeclared heretics, not declared, so Catholics have not been bound by authority to believe these men are heretics, in the absence of authority, we rely on our own judgment to form moral certainty, and our judgments bind no one else. Catholics may differ as to whether these “Popes” are heretics or whether they have lost their office.
We are in a similar situation to the western schism in that the authority has not settled the matter that is dividing the Church. Our situation in some respects is more grave in that it is becoming increasingly harder to identify who the office holders are who can end this crisis by declaring the state of sede vacante and then electing a new Pope. At least during the western schism, it was always clear that there was a functioning and clearly identifiable hierarchy, it just wasn’t clear which hierarchy, Pope and bishops, was the lawful one.