Vinny,
I just read a lot of the thread. It appears to me that the accusation of heresy against you is based on the belief that you are asserting that the Catholic Church defected at Vatican II.
Here is your chance to correct the record, are you asserting that the Church has defected at Vatican II? This goes without saying that the obvious implication being that if the Church defected at Vatican II, it is not an indefectible Church, therefore not the true Church.
From past discussions with you, I don’t think you hold to this heretical idea, but clearly others do, so for the record, this is a good chance to clarify what you are saying.
I have been considering whether the doctrine of papal infallibility inevitably led to sedevacantism (or the R&R camp) as real responses in the Church. However, any discussion of papal infallibility cannot be had without also discussing the indefectibility and immutability of the Church. The Chair of Peter enjoyed Papal Infallibility long before it was dogmatized at the Council of Trent.
In the book, "The Ecumenical Council and the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff," by Cardinal Henry Edward Manning (1808-1892), he explains the position of Saint Robert Bellarmine on Popes and heresy. Manning showed, from Bellarmine the 4 ways the papacy could be understood (not to be confused with Bellarmine's 5 positions against Cajetan.) Bellarmine stated the position of the papacy is thus, "that the Pontiff, whether personally he can be a heretic or no, cannot, in any event, define
anything heretical to be believed by the whole Church. This is the most common opinion of nearly all Catholics as St. Thomas says." I advocate that Bellarmine's position is NOT that the Pope
can fall into heresy, but cannot teach heresy. Bellarmine asserted the fourth position
without answering the question as to whether or not the Pope
can fall into heresy. What Bellarmine definitively said was the Pope
absolutely cannot define a heresy as a teaching to be believed by the whole Church. Manning also went on to say, "The words ex cathedra exclude all acts of the Pontiff as a private person or as a private Doctor, and confine the character of infallibility to those acts which are promulgated from the Chair of supreme authority as Universal Doctor of the Church in faith and morals." I argue that while Bellarmine (and others) may have considered the final fate of a heretical Pope, they never advocated a Pope would become a heretic.
Bellarmine wrote 300 years before Vatican I. In and around Vatican I and after, I have not found any discussion on "heretical Popes," but have repeatedly asked for the evidence of it to which I will study if it is presented. I have considered Bellarmine, Francis de Sales, Manning, Billot, Devine and others.
The reason I began considering whether the dogmatic declaration of the doctrine of infallibility ultimately led to sedevacantism was after I met traditionalists (and Sedes). It was they who continued to point to the errors of Vatican II and after, which they argue contradict the Catholic faith that had long stood leading up to Vatican II. This also included discussions of and especially (and most importantly) either the Pope can be resisted (R&R) or the Chair is Vacant (sede vacante). I concluded then, that within 88 years after the promulgation of papal infallibility, it was alleged the chair went vacant (1958) or was usurped by imposters. The chair has since been either vacant for the last 60 years or is occupied by a cleric who receives some of the most arcane descriptions previously foreign for the Roman Pontiff. So it troubled me; within 148 years of the promulgation of the doctrine of infallibility, the chair either went vacant or the way we describe the chair has vastly changed into terms not know before Vatican II.
Sedes often tell me the changes of Vatican II are so unbelievable for some or that the reality of the chair being vacant is so hard to accept, many revile them and will try anything to not accept sedevacantism (i.e. the R&R camp). Sedes ask the R&R camp a great question, "If Francis is Pope, why resist him and not be obedient as we've been taught (by Vatican I?)" However, when I questioned the sedevacantists that if what they say is true, why their position would not constitute a defection at Vatican II, I found I was met with worse resistance than the resistance they say they receive for saying the seat is vacant.
Below are just a few of the Sede Objections to me and My Responses to those objections. Objections and Responses are marked as such.
Sede Objection:
"I see the Catholic papacy as having been lost to the Vatican leadership before anything truly and absolutely impossible to a Pope ever took place. Now the men (Roncalli and Montini) had clear histories of serious cause for alarm among Catholics, they may even have harbored within their darkened little hearts all manner of heresies, which at first they kept to themselves or at least mitigated to sufficient degree that they could not be formally accused of heresy. For all I know, it may well be what God saw in their hearts which motivated Him to arrange matters in His Providence so as to remove them (or at least Paul VI anyway) from the pontificate before they bind the Church to some grave error. Once so removed however, infallibility no longer applies to them; an "operation of error" (as St. Paul spoke of in Thessalonians) allowed them to then fall into all manner of their intended errors."
My Reply:
Based on what I've studied about the indefectibility of the Church, I do not see it even being remotely possible, not even the slightest bit possible, the Papacy could be lost. Not to Vatican leadership, not to modernist with darkened little hearts, not to anyone. If it is possible, then one would have to conclude the church was defectable, not bound in perpetuity and not owing to infallibility. Pope Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctam does not give me this indication at all. Many have told me that what happened to the papacy is so shocking it is hard for people to believe (and why people will try "anything but sedevacantism.") That is not my fear. My fear is that if what you have stated in this statement is true, there was an actual true defection and there has to be a careful examination and investigation into indefectibility. I appreciate your strong assertion it remains in the faithful Traditionalist Catholics. However, Sedevacantism, in all its definitions of the papacy, Vatican II and post-Vatican II only came about because they are saying there was a defection first, even if you refuse to use the term.
If there was no defection, there would be no sedevacantism. If, as you say, sedevacantism holds the "true church" together, there would have to be a defection to make that so. No one can accept as indefectible a church which must permit a partial, or in this case, a wholesale defection of almost the entire Catholic Church to prove who the truly indefectible are.
I must reject it not of my own volition but because of what the church has taught us about the indefectibility of the church!
Sede Objection:
It has been demonstrated that no one elected to serve after Paul VI in the capacity [as pope] has in any way shown any characteristics of an infallible Pope, no matter what their interior dispositions.
My Reply:
A pope who lacks infallibility is no pope at all. God cannot permit the Church to accept a false Pope.
Sede Objection:
St. Bellarmine agreed, at least as his opinion, and I share that opinion (also as only an opinion) as well, that if a person of secret bad faith somehow got elected, the Church would have to be protected somehow, either that he keeps it to himself and does little to nothing at all, or else that events maneuver his resignation in all Providence.
My Reply:
"The adherence alone of the universal Church will always be of itself an infallible sign of the legitimacy of the person of the Pontiff, and, what is more, even of the existence of all the conditions requisite for legitimacy itself. One need not fetch from afar proof of this claim. The reason is that it is taken immediately from the infallible promise of Christ and from providence. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and Behold I am with you all days. To be sure, for the Church to adhere to a false pontiff would be the same thing as if she were to adhere to a false rule of faith, since the Pope is the living rule which the Church must follow in belief and always follows in fact, as will be still more clearly apparent in what is to be said later. By all means God can permit that at some time or other the vacancy of the see be extended for a considerable time. He can also allow a doubt to arise about the legitimacy of one or another man elected. But He cannot permit the entire Church to receive someone as pontiff who is not a true and legitimate [pope]. Therefore, from the time he has been accepted and joined to the Church as the head to the body, we cannot further consider the question of a possible mistake in the election or of a [possible] deficiency of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy, because the aforementioned adherence of the Church radically heals the mistake in the election and infallibly indicates the existence of all requisite conditions." Cardinal Louis Billot, On The Legitimacy of the Roman Pontiff.
Sede Objection:But you do bring up a good point that the true Church would never accept a stranger instead of the true Shepherd, showing that those who do accept the stranger therefore indeed do not comprise the true Church. But the true and faithful flock could never accept the voice of the stranger or the wolf, and seeing all the most truly serious and pious Catholics taking the right stand shows the passive infallibility of the true Church.
My Reply:It appears, that due to the nature of the infallibility of the Pope and the indefectibility of the Church, God has guaranteed to the church (comprised of everyone else who does not enjoy infallibility) that he would not permit them to accept a false pope. The sure sign there is a true Pope is the universal acceptance of the Pope as Bishop and head of the Church. Otherwise, the Church could never know they acted correctly in accepting the Pope who was elected.
I also advocate that God will not allow the Pope to fall into heresy privately. Otherwise, how can we be sure, (a) he would not so fall and (b) he would be able to come out of his heresy to infallibly lead the Church? Similarly, how can God guarantee his flock would know they have a true Vicar and leader of the flock in the Chair of Peter without them having some confirmation they have done what he has asked them to do? This sure sign they have is that individual Catholics have the assurance the Church at large accepts the Papal election and the new Pope.
Sede Objection:
If true popes promulgated Vatican II, that would be a defected Church. The fact that they were not true popes keeps the indefectibility of the Church intact.
My Reply:
First, if true popes promulgated Vatican II, and you (or I or anyone else) called them heretics, schismatics, false prophets, etc, based on the doctrine of infallibility you are outside the Church. That is what the doctrine is. Bellarmine stated, "The fourth which lies between these extremes, is, that the Pontiff, whether personally he can be a heretic or no, cannot, in any event, define anything heretical to be believed by the whole Church. 'This is the most common opinion of nearly all Catholics' as S Thomas says." Bellarmine then termed the fourth position "most certain, and to be asserted."
The fourth position is NOT that the Pope can fall into heresy, but cannot teach heresy.
Bellarmine asserted his fourth position without answering the question as to whether or not the Pope can fall into heresy. Bellarmine stated, "The fourth position lies between the extremes" and he definitively says the Pope absolutely cannot define a heresy as a teaching to be believed by the whole Church. Manning also went on to say, "The words ex cathedra exclude all acts of the Pontiff as a private person or as a private Doctor, and confine the character of infallibility to those acts which are promulgated from the Chair of supreme authority as Universal Doctor of the Church in faith and morals." Neither Manning nor Bellarmine addressed whether the Pope could fall into private heresy. The Pope retains infallibility in his private capacity. Otherwise, it is certain he would defect from the faith and become a heretic.
I understand you say this is exactly what happened, but as Vatican I declared, it never has because indefectibility means more than infallibility. According to infallibility, this extends to when the Pope speaks from the chair of Peter on matters of faith and morals, but infallibility does not imply the papacy would continue always in this infallibility.
This is what indefectibility is.
Indefectibility declares the Church will continue always, to the end of the world and that she cannot err in these matters. In "The Creed Explained" by the Rev. Arthur Devine (1897), (pp. 289-290) he stated the following, Section 5. Article IX on the Properties of the Church:
"Besides the four notes or marks, the Church has many other properties inherent in and essential to her. The principal of these are indefectibility in being or existence; infallibility in teaching; and authority or power in ruling or governing. These three properties or attributes are denied by all non-Catholic sects, because otherwise they could not account for their existence, or assign any plausible reason for not belonging to the one true Church. We have now to explain separately these properties or attributes."
In section 2 he states, "This is a property by which the Church cannot fail that by which she cannot either lose or have diminished of her divine qualities or gifts even for a short time. The doctrine of the indefectibility of the Church may comprised in the following propositions:
A. The whole Church is indefectible
B. One part of the Church namely the Apostolic is indefectible
C. The particular Church of this or that particular diocese or this or that particular nation may fail and fall away
"Perpetuity is included in indefectibility. Although speaking unless God had ordained otherwise the Church could be perpetual without being in all respects indefectible, ... Perpetuity imports continuation without interruption but indefectibility imports duration and immutability as well"
Finally, he states in section 3:
"Heretics in regard to the indefectibility of the Church err on two points":1.
As to the possibility of defection 2.
As to the fact of defection "They have held various opinions as to the possibility of defection":
A. Some have held that the whole Church can fail entirely for a time.
B. Some say the visible Church can fail but not the invisible Church as if these were two distinct Churches.
C. Others affirm that, although the Church cannot fail entirely, she can do so in part, at least for a time, and even always by losing this or that attribute or perfection, or retaining it but maimed and vitiated.
Finally, on the section, "As to the fact of defection" he states:
"All heretics of every sect hold that the Church has in some way or other failed otherwise as I have said they cannot assign any reason for their separation from her but as to the time of her defection they are not agreed .... Against all these errors Catholics hold the indefectibility of the Church as above explained and the proofs of it and of her infallibility may be said to be the same."
As a Sedevacantist, by saying, "If true popes promulgated Vatican II, that would be a defected Church," and if sedevacantists are in fact correct in this (or can prove it) then the end result is that Vatican II would in and of itself be proof of a defection. You are saying there was an actual defection from the body of the Church because of Vatican II. If this is the case, there was a moment in time when an actual defection happened within the church that is deemed indefectible. If you say, "The fact that they were not true popes keeps the indefectibility of the Church intact," to preserve the church from being defected, you say her head was (and is) gone. According to your position, either, true popes promulgated heresy (Vatican II) or the Church remains indefectible without her head. If her head was at Vatican II, then according to the sedevacantist position, he proclaimed heresy to the entire church. However, because you assert they were not true popes, and the church's indefectibility is intact, then the only other anwer is her chair is vacant and the head is gone.
How can sedevacantists today be so bold as to hold their bishop and head has been removed, her churches are filled with heretics and liars, 99% of the hierarchs and clergy fell, there are no valid orders, the sacraments are no more, but claim this does not constitute a defection? Either Sedevacantism and Recognize & Resist are impossible or the Church's indefectibility in being or existence; infallibility in teaching; and authority or power in ruling or governing is impossible. They cannot be possible at the same time.