Post by Pacelli on Sept 28, 2016 18:15:49 GMT -5
I was asked by someone to comment on this Little Catechism on Sedevacantism, published by the SSPX, and found HERE
Below is the text of the catechism with responses following. This is most of it, and I will finish the rest soon. The Little Catechism on Sedevacantism will be referred to as LCS in this response.
LCS wrote:
While this is true, it is a weak answer. Educated "sedevacantists" hold that the papal claimants Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis have either lost their office or have never assumed it to begin with for the following reasons:
1. They are public heretics, and pertinacity can be presumed as they should know better, and refuse any attempt at correction.
2. They have done things that the papal office would protect term from doing: promulgating evil laws, and teaching heresy or grave error to the universal Church.
LCS wrote:
Some points on the above:
1. Obviously "sedevacantists" want a Pope, as all Catholics want a pope during any state of sedevacante. These groups that have elected a pope during this crisis have conducted illegal elections, as the pope must be chosen by authorized electors. They are usurpers and possibly schismatics.
2. The material/formal position is a made up novelty with no basis in theology or canon law. In my opinion, this idea will be condemned by a future pope.
3. Whether "sedevacantist" Catholics assist at masses with priests who pray for the undeclared antipope, is irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of the position. It is a secondary position, which should be addressed separately from "sedevacantism."
LCS wrote:
This position, as I said above, is a novelty, and is not the position of those who rely on the doctors or the Church, especially Bellarmine, the theologians, and the Code of Canon law.
Why does the Society waste so much time beating down secondary positions, that have absolutely no theological support, rather than taking head on "classic sedevacantism" which is solidly grounded in Scripture and Tradition as taught and explained by the Popes, Doctors, theologians and canonists?
LCS wrote:
I agree, the material/formal position is not based on Tradition. This is why it is important to focus our limited time and energy on Sacred Tradition on the matter of heresy, heretics, loss of office, the indefectibility of the Church, the ordinary magisterium, the universal and ordinary magisterium, the four marks and visibility of the Church, as it has been taught by the Popes and explained by the theologians.
Since "classic sedevacantists" and the SSPX agree on this matter, it really should not belong in a tract dealing with sedevacantism, and should be addressed separately.
Regarding how the Church can remain visible, the Church can be more or less visible, it is not fixed at the level of visibility it once had in 1950, for example. There was once a time when the entire visible hierarchy of the Catholic Church existed in a single room hidden from the world. The size and degree of visibility of the Church is accidental and is subject to change over time.
LCS wrote:
True, but that is only half of the argument. The second and equally important argument is that these men have done things that a pope cannot do, as explained above.
I think it is also worth mentioning the reason why public heretics cannot be office holders in the Church: once a Catholic knowingly and publicly become a heretic, they, by that act, leave the Church, they are no longer members, and if they held an office, they, by leaving the Church, tacitly resign from their office.
LCS wrote:
It is not easy to make a judgment about another in regards to guilt, on that we agree. I think we could also agree that guilt can be determined based on the public evidence, and part of the evidence against these men is the fact that these men know better and are unwilling to be corrected.
As a priest, you must know that there are circumstances in which you may be called to make a judgment about another without the benefit of authority. If you are aware that a Catholic is a public sinner, for example, you would be forced to make a judgment before denying such a person Holy Communion. The facts of the case, along with the presumption of guilt are sufficient to make an actionable judgment.
Another example can be given: when a Pope dies, the fact of his death as determined by the evidence of the death is sufficient to make a judgment of the fact of death. Even though the death of a pope has an immensely significant effect on the Church and all Catholics, it is not necessary that this fact be certified by a Council of the Church, even though it might be possible that that a mistake could be made regarding the fact of death. The fact of death is determined by the evidence, not from authority. The same principle applies to heresy, schism, and apostasy. It is possible to observe the fact from the evidence that a Catholic has left the Church by embracing heretical propositions, joining a sect, outright apostasy, or becoming a schismatic. I am fully aware that we must be very careful in making such a judgment about another, and we must try to reasonable excuse the accused as far as reason will allow, but if we are morally certain that a Catholic has become a heretic, we may form that judgment prior to the judgment of the Church, and then act upon it, while awaiting the judgment of authority.
Below is the text of the catechism with responses following. This is most of it, and I will finish the rest soon. The Little Catechism on Sedevacantism will be referred to as LCS in this response.
LCS wrote:
What is sedevacantism?
Sedevacantism is the theory of those who think that the most recent popes, the popes of the Second Vatican Council, have not really been popes. Consequently, the See of Peter is not occupied. This is expressed in Latin by the formula sede vacante.
Where does this theory come from?
This theory has been conceived in reaction to the very grave crisis which the Church has been undergoing since the Council, a crisis that Archbishop Lefebvre justly called "the third world war." The main cause of the crisis has been the dereliction of the Roman Pontiffs, who teach or allow to be propagated serious errors on the subjects of ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, etc.
The sedevacantists think that real popes could not be responsible for such a crisis, and consequently they consider them not to be "real" popes.
Sedevacantism is the theory of those who think that the most recent popes, the popes of the Second Vatican Council, have not really been popes. Consequently, the See of Peter is not occupied. This is expressed in Latin by the formula sede vacante.
Where does this theory come from?
This theory has been conceived in reaction to the very grave crisis which the Church has been undergoing since the Council, a crisis that Archbishop Lefebvre justly called "the third world war." The main cause of the crisis has been the dereliction of the Roman Pontiffs, who teach or allow to be propagated serious errors on the subjects of ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, etc.
The sedevacantists think that real popes could not be responsible for such a crisis, and consequently they consider them not to be "real" popes.
While this is true, it is a weak answer. Educated "sedevacantists" hold that the papal claimants Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis have either lost their office or have never assumed it to begin with for the following reasons:
1. They are public heretics, and pertinacity can be presumed as they should know better, and refuse any attempt at correction.
2. They have done things that the papal office would protect term from doing: promulgating evil laws, and teaching heresy or grave error to the universal Church.
LCS wrote:
Do the sedevacantists agree amongst themselves?
No, far from it. There are many different positions. Some think that, since the Chair of Peter is vacant, someone should occupy it, and so they have elected a "pope." Such is the case of the sect of Palmar in Spain, for example. Among those who do not go so far, there are different schools. Some think that the current pope is an anti-pope, others that he is only partly pope, a pope materialiter but not formaliter.
Some sedevacantists consider their position as a "likely opinion," and consent to receive the sacraments from non-sedevacantist priests, while others, called "ultra" by the Fr. Coache,[1] make it a matter of faith, and refuse to assist at Masses where the priest prays for the pope. But what is common to all the sedevacantists is that they think that the pope should not be prayed for in public.
No, far from it. There are many different positions. Some think that, since the Chair of Peter is vacant, someone should occupy it, and so they have elected a "pope." Such is the case of the sect of Palmar in Spain, for example. Among those who do not go so far, there are different schools. Some think that the current pope is an anti-pope, others that he is only partly pope, a pope materialiter but not formaliter.
Some sedevacantists consider their position as a "likely opinion," and consent to receive the sacraments from non-sedevacantist priests, while others, called "ultra" by the Fr. Coache,[1] make it a matter of faith, and refuse to assist at Masses where the priest prays for the pope. But what is common to all the sedevacantists is that they think that the pope should not be prayed for in public.
Some points on the above:
1. Obviously "sedevacantists" want a Pope, as all Catholics want a pope during any state of sedevacante. These groups that have elected a pope during this crisis have conducted illegal elections, as the pope must be chosen by authorized electors. They are usurpers and possibly schismatics.
2. The material/formal position is a made up novelty with no basis in theology or canon law. In my opinion, this idea will be condemned by a future pope.
3. Whether "sedevacantist" Catholics assist at masses with priests who pray for the undeclared antipope, is irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of the position. It is a secondary position, which should be addressed separately from "sedevacantism."
LCS wrote:
What is meant by being pope materialiter?
The main difficulty of sedevacantism is to explain how the Church can continue to exist in a visible manner (for she has received from the Lord the promise that she will endure until the end of the world) while being deprived of her head. The partisans of the so-called "Cassiciacum Thesis"[2] have come up with a very subtle solution: the current pope was validly designated as pope, but he did not receive the papal authority because there was an interior obstacle (heresy). So, according to the theory, he is able to act in some ways for the good of the Church, such as, for instance, appointing cardinals (who are cardinals materialiter), but he is not really pope.
The main difficulty of sedevacantism is to explain how the Church can continue to exist in a visible manner (for she has received from the Lord the promise that she will endure until the end of the world) while being deprived of her head. The partisans of the so-called "Cassiciacum Thesis"[2] have come up with a very subtle solution: the current pope was validly designated as pope, but he did not receive the papal authority because there was an interior obstacle (heresy). So, according to the theory, he is able to act in some ways for the good of the Church, such as, for instance, appointing cardinals (who are cardinals materialiter), but he is not really pope.
This position, as I said above, is a novelty, and is not the position of those who rely on the doctors or the Church, especially Bellarmine, the theologians, and the Code of Canon law.
Why does the Society waste so much time beating down secondary positions, that have absolutely no theological support, rather than taking head on "classic sedevacantism" which is solidly grounded in Scripture and Tradition as taught and explained by the Popes, Doctors, theologians and canonists?
LCS wrote:
What do you think of this solution?
For one thing, this solution is not based on Tradition. Theologians (Cajetan, St. Robert Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas, etc.) who have examined the possibility of a heretical pope, but no one prior to the Council every devised such a theory. Also, it does not resolve the main difficulty of sedevacantism, namely, how the Church can continue to be visible, for, if the pope, the cardinals, the bishops, etc., are deprived of their "form," then no visible Church hierarchy is left. Moreover, this theory has some serious philosophical defects because it supposes that a head can be head materialiter, that is, without authority.
For one thing, this solution is not based on Tradition. Theologians (Cajetan, St. Robert Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas, etc.) who have examined the possibility of a heretical pope, but no one prior to the Council every devised such a theory. Also, it does not resolve the main difficulty of sedevacantism, namely, how the Church can continue to be visible, for, if the pope, the cardinals, the bishops, etc., are deprived of their "form," then no visible Church hierarchy is left. Moreover, this theory has some serious philosophical defects because it supposes that a head can be head materialiter, that is, without authority.
I agree, the material/formal position is not based on Tradition. This is why it is important to focus our limited time and energy on Sacred Tradition on the matter of heresy, heretics, loss of office, the indefectibility of the Church, the ordinary magisterium, the universal and ordinary magisterium, the four marks and visibility of the Church, as it has been taught by the Popes and explained by the theologians.
Since "classic sedevacantists" and the SSPX agree on this matter, it really should not belong in a tract dealing with sedevacantism, and should be addressed separately.
Regarding how the Church can remain visible, the Church can be more or less visible, it is not fixed at the level of visibility it once had in 1950, for example. There was once a time when the entire visible hierarchy of the Catholic Church existed in a single room hidden from the world. The size and degree of visibility of the Church is accidental and is subject to change over time.
LCS wrote:
What arguments do the sedevacantists adduce to prove their theories?
They use a theological argument and a canonical one. The theological argument consists of positing that a heretic cannot be head of the Church, but John Paul II is a heretic, therefore...
The legal argument consists of pointing out that the laws of the Church invalidate the election of a heretic; but Cardinal Wojtyla was a heretic at the time of his election, therefore...
They use a theological argument and a canonical one. The theological argument consists of positing that a heretic cannot be head of the Church, but John Paul II is a heretic, therefore...
The legal argument consists of pointing out that the laws of the Church invalidate the election of a heretic; but Cardinal Wojtyla was a heretic at the time of his election, therefore...
True, but that is only half of the argument. The second and equally important argument is that these men have done things that a pope cannot do, as explained above.
I think it is also worth mentioning the reason why public heretics cannot be office holders in the Church: once a Catholic knowingly and publicly become a heretic, they, by that act, leave the Church, they are no longer members, and if they held an office, they, by leaving the Church, tacitly resign from their office.
LCS wrote:
But isn’t it true that a pope who becomes a heretic loses the pontificate?
St. Robert Bellarmine says that a pope who would formally and manifestly become a heretic would lose the pontificate. For that to apply to John Paul II, he would have to be a formal heretic, deliberately refusing the Church’s magisterium; and this formal heresy would have to be open and manifest. But if John Paul II often enough makes heretical affirmations or statements that lead to heresy, it cannot easily be shown that he is aware of rejecting any dogma of the Church. And as long as there is no sure proof, then it is more prudent to refrain from judging. This was Archbishop Lefebvre’s line of conduct.
St. Robert Bellarmine says that a pope who would formally and manifestly become a heretic would lose the pontificate. For that to apply to John Paul II, he would have to be a formal heretic, deliberately refusing the Church’s magisterium; and this formal heresy would have to be open and manifest. But if John Paul II often enough makes heretical affirmations or statements that lead to heresy, it cannot easily be shown that he is aware of rejecting any dogma of the Church. And as long as there is no sure proof, then it is more prudent to refrain from judging. This was Archbishop Lefebvre’s line of conduct.
It is not easy to make a judgment about another in regards to guilt, on that we agree. I think we could also agree that guilt can be determined based on the public evidence, and part of the evidence against these men is the fact that these men know better and are unwilling to be corrected.
As a priest, you must know that there are circumstances in which you may be called to make a judgment about another without the benefit of authority. If you are aware that a Catholic is a public sinner, for example, you would be forced to make a judgment before denying such a person Holy Communion. The facts of the case, along with the presumption of guilt are sufficient to make an actionable judgment.
Another example can be given: when a Pope dies, the fact of his death as determined by the evidence of the death is sufficient to make a judgment of the fact of death. Even though the death of a pope has an immensely significant effect on the Church and all Catholics, it is not necessary that this fact be certified by a Council of the Church, even though it might be possible that that a mistake could be made regarding the fact of death. The fact of death is determined by the evidence, not from authority. The same principle applies to heresy, schism, and apostasy. It is possible to observe the fact from the evidence that a Catholic has left the Church by embracing heretical propositions, joining a sect, outright apostasy, or becoming a schismatic. I am fully aware that we must be very careful in making such a judgment about another, and we must try to reasonable excuse the accused as far as reason will allow, but if we are morally certain that a Catholic has become a heretic, we may form that judgment prior to the judgment of the Church, and then act upon it, while awaiting the judgment of authority.