alyosha
Junior Member
Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God
Posts: 60
|
Post by alyosha on Aug 26, 2023 8:07:53 GMT -5
Salve Maria. I want to respectfully propose a problem on the sedevacantist position in the hope that someone can show me where I made a mistake. This is just my personal understanding on the subject and its not my intention to offend or attack anyone. Also, please excuse if my use of language is harsh, I'm trying to be as concise and objective as possible and that can sound very judgmental, but its not my intention aswell.
First let me clarify some definitions: "Conciliar Magisterium": The teachings and acts of the Church that reflect the supposed new claims of the Vatican II council. That includes a timeframe before, during and after the council. "Traditional Magisterium": The teachings and acts of the Church that reflect the non disputed claims of the Church. Also includes a timeframe before, during and after the council.
The Sedevacantist position: I will now try to steelman in the best of my abilities the position. I apologize beforehand if I don't do enough justice, and you can call me out if needed. According to the most prominent versions of sedevacantism (Cekada, Sanborn, True Restoration, Novus Ordo Watch, Mater Boni Consilii, etc) the sedevacantist position can be summarized as such:
Afirmative: The best explanation for the current situation of the Catholic Church is that the Conciliar Magisterium and all its members, including and especially the person who currently occupies the Petrine Apostolic Chair, is not the Catholic Church, either formally or fully.
Justification:
Premise 1: The Conciliar Magisterium substantially and irreconcilably contradicts the Traditional Magisterium. Premise 2: The Catholic Church cannot substantively contradict itself in its binding teachings (Dogma). Premise 3: Either the Conciliar Magisterium or the Traditional Magisterium is not binding (Conclusion of 1 and 2). Premise 4: It is impossible for the Traditional Magisterium not to be binding. (Dogma) Premise 5: The Conciliar Magisterium is not binding (Conclusion of 3 and 4). Premise 6: If the Conciliar Magisterium is not binding, it means that it lacks apostolic authority. Premise 7: The Conciliar Magisterium lacks apostolic authority (Conclusion of 5 and 6). Premise 8: The Catholic Church does not lack apostolic authority (Dogma). Conclusion: The Conciliar Magisterium is not the Catholic Church.
As far as I can tell, only Premise 1 and 6 can be reasonably challenged. The SSPX challenges Premise 6, but I don't think their challenge is successful. I will challenge Premisse 1. Here's the objection:
Objection:
Premise 1 is false. To understand why, we will need to explain the two possible ways of assent to what it is said:
1. Assent under criteria of credibility judges “what is said” before “who says it”. It is about evaluating what is being said in harmony with all the evidence and only assenting once its reasonableness is assured. It is characteristic of experts, scientists, historians, among others. Example: A historian claims that Alexander the Great is a true historical figure. This statement must be analyzed according to the opinions of other historians, archaeological evidence, texts and testimonies, and only when its coherence and reasonableness are observed should one assent.
2. Assent under criteria of authority judges “who says it” before “what is said”. It is about observing who is the subject of the statement and what is his authority, and once established, one must assent without critical judgment. It is typical of military commanders, foremen, judges, among others. Example: A general orders a junior officer to send his troops to a certain strategic location. The officer must see that the subject of the order is his superior and obey immediately, even if his own critical judgment disagrees with the decision. It must be so, for if it were possible to question authority, the war would be lost.
Well then, the faith due to the Magisterium of the Church must always be based on criteria of authority and not of credibility, since the Pope and his bishops speak in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and only he who holds the Divine Science could judge the veracity of what has been revealed.
However, premise 1 judges the Conciliar Magisterium under the criteria of credibility, and not of authority, which is due to it. Premise 1 implies a quia demonstration, from the effect to the cause, that what is being said by the Magisterium is false and irreconcilable with the truth, and therefore the Magisterium lacks authority. One judges first “what is said” to determine “who says it”. This is illicit for the lay Catholic. It is not up to the layperson's personal critical judgment to determine which words of the Magisterium are reconcilable with tradition or not. To do so would be to fall into the same Protestant error of believing that the layman can interpret the words of Holy Scripture and determine whether the authority of the Magisterium tells the truth or not. Ultimately, it is the authority of the Magisterium that determines what can and cannot be reconciled with revealed truth. If the Magisterium happens to pronounce a certain sentence, and when interpreting it it seems to be contradictory with the traditional truth, the layperson should not judge that the Magisterium has erred, but rather doubt his own interpretation. Between the Old and New Testaments, there are not few apparently contradictory sentences and it should not be concluded that the Spirit of the New was not formally holy and true.
Now, I would like to ask you if my objection actually succeeds, and if it doesn't where I made a mistake. Thank you in advance, and sorry for the long post.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 26, 2023 14:42:31 GMT -5
Well Im just simple folk...and I applaud your gracious and concise and precise way you stated your argument. Its refreshing considering many so called traditionalist presume sedes are heretics and not worthy of even a dialog. I need you to answer a clarifying question Youve made a very good definition of sedevacantism...or at least as far as this peasent mind of mine can discern. So my question is can you define a sedevacanTIST. The person who identifies as one?
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 26, 2023 14:43:12 GMT -5
I assure you its relevant
|
|
alyosha
Junior Member
Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God
Posts: 60
|
Post by alyosha on Aug 26, 2023 15:15:55 GMT -5
Thank you for your answer and the compliments. I haven't given a thorough pondering on a definition for sedevacantist, but from the top of my head, it would probably be "someone who accepts, directly or indirectly the afirmative". And for "afirmative" I mean the afirmative in the original argument.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 373
|
Post by John Lewis on Aug 27, 2023 5:32:09 GMT -5
Hi alyosha, Thanks for your contribution to the forum. It raises food for thought. I would like more people to review the contradictions between Vatican II and the pre-vatican II magisterium to see whether they are real or just apparent. You can find some examples of traditionalist claims of contradiction in these documents. Adieu.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 27, 2023 11:37:38 GMT -5
alyosha , Thank you for presenting your thoughts clearly and cordially. I think your premises leading to the conclusion are very ordered, logical, and if true, which I believe they are, lead one to rejecting the conciliar magisterium beginning with Paul VI through John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and currently Francis. In my opinion, I believe there are many problems with Vatican II, although not all are errors against the Faith, in and of themselves, but as Fr. Schmidberger, former Superior General of the SSPX, once wrote, there were "time bombs" in the documents, which once developed after Vatican II through the magisterial teachings of the "popes" after Vatican II, did teach new doctrine clearly and explicitly, unlike Vatican II, which taught it ambiguously, that was directly in conflict with the magisterium of the pre-conciliar popes. Some examples that are open to discussion on this are the concept that the Old Covenant is still in force, that salvation can be achieved through non-Catholic sects, that the primary and secondary ends of marriage are now equivalent, that the state cannot use coercion to defend and promote the true religion in its territory, that the Church is greater than just the Catholic Church, and that schismatic and heretical sects are part of the Church, but to a lesser extent, and following that, the unity of the Church is not merely made up of Catholics but also includes baptized schismatics and heretics, and the concept of ecumenism and interfaith most explicitly taught by John Paul II verse the teaching of Pope Pius XI. There are more issues but these come to mind readily. In my opinion, the most explicit rupture in a text from Vatican II that was unambiguous was Dignitatis Humanae, which specifically and clearly taught doctrine directly at odds with the magisterium of Popes Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius XII. I am not the only person to notice this, many who accept the papal claims of Paul VI and his successors have also noticed the problem, and have been wrestling with this matter for decades, and all sorts of novel theories have tried to bridge the gap in different ways using various arguments to show there was no rupture. These arguments all fail when put up to scrutiny, and I believe it can be demonstrated by both looking at the documents in question carefully, and reading what the papal teaching since Vatican II has taught which only reinforces the fact that there was a rupture in doctrine. The teaching of Vatican II is also directly at odds with the practice of the Catholic Church for centuries, which if this novelty were true, then the Church would have been guilty of promoting sin in the form of violating the natural law during the Inquisition in which the Church not only handed to the state those found guilty for punishment but encouraged the state to take action using their power as state governments to punish heretics up to and including using the death penalty. The same can be said of the war against the Albigensian heretics. These actions were all sanctioned by the Church directly by the various popes. I am happy to discuss with you more in a separate thread just looking at this one issue of religious liberty. If even this one matter is true, that there that there is a direct conflict between Vatican II, the magisterium Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis with the magisterium of Popes Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius XII, then I believe your premises that you gave all flow to the conclusion correctly and accurately, which then leads us to a discussion on what that all means.
|
|
alyosha
Junior Member
Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God
Posts: 60
|
Post by alyosha on Aug 27, 2023 11:51:05 GMT -5
Thank you for such a gracious answer Pacelli. Let me start by saying that I'm willing to grant you all of your claims. As far as I can tell, I agree with almost all of them. I do personaly believe that there are claims from the Conciliar Magisterium that are irreconcilable with the universal truth. I also have searched for the justifications and attempts of reconciliation of these claims, probably not as meticulous and extensive as you have, and found that all of them fail.
But the problem is, and that is the main point of my argument, that I'm not so sure that my personal critical judgment in this matter has any value, or can justify any claim whatsoever about the Magisterium or what we ought to do. As far as I can tell, and I tried to expose this as clear as I can in the argument, even if my personal judgment tells me that the Magisterium is in the wrong, I have to submit my actions and my will to the Magisterium. In other words, the Magisterium is the ultimate arbiter on what is or isn't reconcilable.
I hope I clarified my position.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 27, 2023 17:56:10 GMT -5
Thank you for such a gracious answer Pacelli. Let me start by saying that I'm willing to grant you all of your claims. As far as I can tell, I agree with almost all of them. I do personaly believe that there are claims from the Conciliar Magisterium that are irreconcilable with the universal truth. I also have searched for the justifications and attempts of reconciliation of these claims, probably not as meticulous and extensive as you have, and found that all of them fail. But the problem is, and that is the main point of my argument, that I'm not so sure that my personal critical judgment in this matter has any value, or can justify any claim whatsoever about the Magisterium or what we ought to do. As far as I can tell, and I tried to expose this as clear as I can in the argument, even if my personal judgment tells me that the Magisterium is in the wrong, I have to submit my actions and my will to the Magisterium. In other words, the Magisterium is the ultimate arbiter on what is or isn't reconcilable. I hope I clarified my position. I agree with you about the humility and distrust of oneself that we must have in treating all of this, and I can tell you that I truly wish I was not in a situation that I must judge documents coming from Rome since the time of Vatican II. If I could just have a simple life, go to Church, pray my rosary and just be happy with that, and never think about all this controversy again, it would be bring me so much joy. It's always important, in my opinion, to remember that this crisis was not created by us, but we are faced with it, and it is our duty to confront it, and do our best to get to the truth, no matter how complex these matter may be. The problem for us all of us, you and I, and every other Catholic living through this, is that this situation is forced upon us, because God is permitting it, and we must keep our Faith, and by that reject heresy and doctrinal error, so we have no choice but to dig into all this complexity. Let me also say one last thing, realizing that doctrinal error has happened in official documents of Vatican II and the magisterium of the post conciliar claimants does not mean that you must run to a sedevacantist chapel, it only means that you must retreat from the sect that has formed around the error, not Catholics keeping their Faith. For myself, I would urge SSPX and Eastern rites over almost all sedevacantist chapels.
|
|
|
Post by lamentabili on Aug 28, 2023 10:05:40 GMT -5
Thank you for such a gracious answer Pacelli. Let me start by saying that I'm willing to grant you all of your claims. As far as I can tell, I agree with almost all of them. I do personaly believe that there are claims from the Conciliar Magisterium that are irreconcilable with the universal truth. I also have searched for the justifications and attempts of reconciliation of these claims, probably not as meticulous and extensive as you have, and found that all of them fail. But the problem is, and that is the main point of my argument, that I'm not so sure that my personal critical judgment in this matter has any value, or can justify any claim whatsoever about the Magisterium or what we ought to do. As far as I can tell, and I tried to expose this as clear as I can in the argument, even if my personal judgment tells me that the Magisterium is in the wrong, I have to submit my actions and my will to the Magisterium. In other words, the Magisterium is the ultimate arbiter on what is or isn't reconcilable. I hope I clarified my position. Hi Alyosha. Thank you for presenting your argument clearly. In order to shed more light on the reason why traditionalists think the way that we do in rejecting Vatican II and the Conciliar Magisterium (as you call it), I’d like to provide this quote from St. Robert Bellarmine: “The people must indeed discern a true prophet from a false one, but not by any other rule than by a diligent attention as to whether he who is preaching says anything contrary to what was said by his predecessors, or to what is said by the other ordinary pastors, and particularly by the apostolic see, and the principal Church. For it is commanded to the people to listen to its pastors. Luke X: He that heareth you, heareth me. And in Matthew XXIII: Whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do. The people should not therefore judge its pastor unless it hears novelties, and things different from the doctrine of other pastors.” — St. Robert Bellarmine, De Membris Ecclesiae, L. 1, De Clericis, c. 7 According to St. Robert, we ought to judge our pastor(s) if we hear novelties. Therefore, Paul VI, putative pastor as he was, ought to have been judged—and was rightly judged—by Catholics to have deviated from the true faith. As Pacelli pointed out very well, his approval of Dignitatis Humanae may have been the clearest example of that. Furthermore, I’d like to ask you two questions to help illustrate what I think are flaws in your reasoning: If “the Church” told you that there are four Persons in the Trinity, would you assent? If “the Church” told you that the doctrines that it is preaching are new, would you assent? I am also glad that you recognise that there are serious problems with the Conciliar Magisterium.
|
|
alyosha
Junior Member
Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God
Posts: 60
|
Post by alyosha on Aug 28, 2023 12:15:54 GMT -5
Thank you for your answer lamentabili. I think that I understand the reasoning behind the justifications of the sedevacantist position. I admit easily that there are many theological arguments that may justify, ate the very least, something akin to sedevacantism. But the point of my argument, and I hope you can see that, is that ultimately there is a common barrier that needs to be trespassed, no matter the ways used to reach it. Your justification, as the others, is ultimately claiming that, yes you can judge the Magisterium on the critera of credibility. That, as far as I can tell, is an illicit position. I grant you that St Bellarmine is claiming something similar to this in the quote you provided, but I'm not sure that this applies to the Magisterium as a whole. I also don't think this is a settled matter by the doctors of the Church. But of course, I'm willing to change my mind.
Answering your questions, I believe to be impossible for the Church to proclaim such things. i know it seems an unsatisfying answer, but is the only logical answer possible that I can give. It is like trying to answer "If the entire Church disappeared from existence, what would you do?". It is a question that doesn't make sense, because I believe such thing is impossible. Now, I can foresee two objections to this:
First: Believing something to be imposible doesn't mean it is actually impossible. How can you be certain that what the Conciliar Magisterium isn't proclaiming something that you would believe to be impossible aswell? To that I answer: Logically my position is consistent. I believe your examples to be impossible since they seem contradictory with the revealed truth. Since I have no good reason to doubt this assessment, the answer is sound. I don't believe that what the Conciliar Magisterium says is impossible because, obviously, it was already proclaimed. Because of that, I have a good reason to doubt my own interpretation that this proclamation is irreconcilable with the revealed truth.
Second: You are presupposing sedevacantism to be impossible with that answer, since any possible contradiction by the Magisterium you can simply say that it is impossible. To that I answer: This is a non sequitur. We both agree that the Catholic Church cannot contradict herself. And we also both agree that a false church can contradict the revealed truth. But what we disagree is that I believe to be illicit to conclude that what appears to be the legitimate Magisterium is actually a false church, from the proclamations alone. In other words, you cannot disagree with the effects and conclude that the cause is false.
I hope I clarified my position.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 28, 2023 13:35:10 GMT -5
we would do well to define judge and judgment at this point
|
|
|
Post by lamentabili on Aug 28, 2023 15:11:56 GMT -5
Thank you for your response. But the point of my argument, and I hope you can see that, is that ultimately there is a common barrier that needs to be trespassed, no matter the ways used to reach it. I don’t think that the barrier that you posit is a real one. If anyone, whether a putative Pope or a layman on the street, tells you to believe something contrary to the Catholic faith, you are bound in conscience to reject what they teach. Especially if they tell you that they are teaching new doctrines. Your justification, as the others, is ultimately claiming that, yes you can judge the Magisterium on the critera of credibility. That, as far as I can tell, is an illicit position. No, not the Magisterium, at least not when speaking solemnly. What we can judge are doctrines purporting to be from the Magisterium. Or, if you like, the “Magisterium,” in quotation marks. When it is manifest that a doctrine is not from the Magisterium, and the people pushing them on the faithful are telling us that they are novel, it can and should be judged as poison to be rejected, as St Robert said. I grant you that St Bellarmine is claiming something similar to this in the quote you provided, but I'm not sure that this applies to the Magisterium as a whole. I also don't think this is a settled matter by the doctors of the Church. But of course, I'm willing to change my mind. The judgment is of claimants to the Papacy that I firmly believe to have been false Popes and those who adhered them, not of the Magisterium. And which doctor can you cite to the contrary? Answering your questions, I believe to be impossible for the Church to proclaim such things. i know it seems an unsatisfying answer, but is the only logical answer possible that I can give. I agree with you. That’s not an unsatisfying answer. Hence why I say that it is impossible for the Catholic Church to have taught the things that were taught at Vatican II, like religious liberty. Those came from the Conciliar Church. Religious liberty was solemnly condemned by Pius IX as contrary to divine revelation in Quanta Cura. It is heretical. If the Church could teach this, and we ought to turn a blind eye to it, why could it not also teach you that there are four Persons in the Trinity, and you turn a blind eye to that too, chalking it up to you being mistaken in your private judgment that the teaching is contrary to Catholic dogma? Both are heresies, yet you seem to think that it is impossible that the modern teaching on religious liberty is heretical because “the Church proposed it.” I think that your methodology is fundamentally flawed, and leads to absurdities like this. That is why I put “Church” in quotation marks. It is impossible that the Church teach that there are four Persons in the Trinity, just as it is impossible that it teach that each person has a natural right to religious liberty. Therefore, these doctrines must have come from some other institution, not the Catholic Church, despite whatever appearances may have convinced people otherwise. Those pertinaciously adhering to these doctrines were not members of the Catholic Church, and had no right to govern her whatsoever. This also seems to address the first objection that you thought I would raise. John Paul II told us that the doctrines of Vatican II were novel: “Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel themselves called upon to answer in the present circumstances. Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council's continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.” — John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, 5b I’m not believing a novel doctrine. Not one bit. As far as I’m concerned, those who teach these ideas are no Popes of mine.
|
|
alyosha
Junior Member
Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God
Posts: 60
|
Post by alyosha on Aug 28, 2023 16:44:27 GMT -5
Ok, we're seem to be having some misunderstandings that I'll try to clarify so we can reach a common ground. In your thoughtful response you made multiple very good points, but they were scattered through your sentences in a way that can be confusing to condense them into a single cohesive position. So, I'll try to present your claim as strongly as possible and as best as I can. I apologise in advance if I don't do you justice, and you can correct any mistake of mine. But first let me make some clarifications.
I dind't use the term barrier in the sense that it is something that shouldn't be claimed, or something like that. Probably it wasn't the best term to use. What I was trying to say is that, ultimately there is a common path, a single unavoidable position, that all justifications for sedevacantism must take, that being the possibility to judge the Magisterium according to credibility criteria. Now, it could be the case that the lay catholic is allowed to do that, of course. But so far I'm not convinced that it is the case.
I never claimed that it is impossible that the new teaching of religious liberty is heresy. What I said is that any new clear and obvious heresy that the Church might proclaim I believe to be impossible. The reason is simple, as I stated in my previous post, because the Church cannot contradict herself. And any proclamation that the Church has made that my personal judgment believes is a contradiction the only possible position that I can take is to doubt my own interpretation, because it is the Magisterium of the Church that defines what is and what isn't contradictory to the faith. That is the crux of my original argument.
Now for your position. You seem to be claiming the following:
"I deny that I'm judging the Magisterium with criteria of credibility, because what I'm judging is not the Magisterium, but a false church. That fact is self-evident from the proclamations and acts of this church which are blatantly contradictory to the Catholic faith"
Now, at face value this statement seem to be self-refuting. You are denying using criteria of credibility but in the very next sentence describing exactly what these criteria are and admitting using them. That is, judging the authority of "who says it" based on "what is said". But, there are two ways you can escape that: A) By Axiom: Simply stating that the Conciliar Magisterium lacks authority necessarily; or
B) By circular reasoning: Using what the Conciliar Magisterium says to declare its lack of authority, and using the lack of authority of the Conciliar Magisterium to justify the use of what this Magisterium says to judge it.
I hope you can see both of these justifications are invalid. And that leads us back to my original argument. The point I'm trying to make is, and I think everyone that holds the sedevacantist position must really understand this, that there is a unavoidable consequence of sedevacantism. You are always and necessarily judging the Magisterium of the Church based on criteria of credibility. This is a logical necessity. Now, that may be allowed, I grant you that. But as far as I can tell, it isn't. Of course, I may be wrong and I'm open to change my mind.
I hope I clarified my position.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 28, 2023 23:55:44 GMT -5
I suppose no one read my post ( you know me the owner and supreme court in the group) We need to define Judgment and to judge...Its being used loosly and imprecisly...please clarify judgment in context. There is juridical acts...laity have no authority to impose judgments juridically...BUT they are encouraged to discern things for the good and safeguarding of their Souls. This needs to be cleared up.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Aug 29, 2023 0:03:28 GMT -5
Hi Alyosha,
The architects of the revolution themselves acknowledge a discontinuity between the pre-VII and post-VII magisterium.
In his 1987 book-p. 382, “Principles of Catholic Theology”, Cardinal Ratzinger (at that time, prefect of the CDF) praises Vatican document “Gaudium et Spes “ as a counter syllabus.
He writes,
The Cardinal goes on to say
Ultimately, the broader question (in my opinion) comes to mind : Can the “Conciliar Church” under the governance and “magisterium “ of Montini, Wojtyla, Ratzinger and Bergoglio be the true Church especially when you consider the points below:
1. Doctrinal unity ceased being enforced after 1958. 2. The Church immediately entered the gravest crisis it has ever endured 3. Iconoclasts proceeded to demolish ancient statuary and altar rails and altars all over the Latin Rite, with the approval of "rome." 4. Worse, heresy became rampant, again with the AT LEAST tacit approval of "rome." 5. At least 50,000 priests, perhaps 100,000, abandoned their vocations within ten years of 1965. 6. Entire religious institutes were vacated, vocations collapsed. 7. Hundreds of millions of the faithful lost their faith, and ceased practicing AT MINIMUM. 8. Essentially, three generations of Catholics have now been lost to the Church in the Latin Rite. 9. All seven sacramental rites were replaced with new, synthetic, ones, including the mass itself, which was re-written with the aid of heretics so as to eliminate numerous specifically Catholic doctrinal references.
i.e. “…the Novus Ordo Missae...represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass. ... To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries stood as a sign and pledge of unity in worship, and to replace it with another liturgy which, due to the countless liberties it implicitly authorizes, cannot but be a sign of division — a liturgy which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic Faith — is, we feel bound in conscience to proclaim, an incalculable error."- Cd. Ottaviani in his “Intervention”
10. The response of "rome" to the varying reactions has been to persecute the orthodox and defend and enable the heterodox.
Now, the reason these people lost their faith is primarily that they noticed the obvious - that "the Church" no longer believed in her own teaching. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of the "popes" proved beyond doubt that this faithlessness was official. [the above 10 points were taken from poster - Nazianzen from another trad forum]
|
|