|Catechism on Sedevacantism
|Page 1 of 1|
|Author:||James Schroepfer [ Fri Dec 19, 2014 8:45 pm ]|
|Post subject:||Catechism on Sedevacantism|
[For those of us still confused or more recently confused by "pope" Francis on the issue of whether the Seat of Peter can become vacant, all we need to do is read this handy little catechism against sedevacantism by the Society of Pius X to answer our questions. How much easier can it be??? JS]
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/ ... antism.htm
"A little catechism on sedevacantism
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 [bold added] 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.
[The Society poses the question but does not answer it. Or I should say infers the opposite. JS]
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, 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.
[It is not that sedevacantists do not believe in praying for a true pope or that they refuse to pray for Bergoglio; it is we don't believe when we pray for Bergoglio, we are praying for the pope. JS]
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" 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 theory is not sedevacantism but another theory, sedeprivationism. This piece deliberately tries to circumvent the real issue of sedevacantism, and smear it over with what truly is a novelty, sedeprivationism. JS]
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.
[Again we are presented by actually two false arguments. I will certainly agree that the above theologians would reject the sedeprivatist theory, but this paragraph then falsely asserts that these theologians were on agreement over the subject and would have all supported the Society's position. The second would be that if the seat became vacant, so would all other offices of the hierarchical structure. JS]
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...
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. [bold added]
[It is a pretty sorry argument to claim that John Paul II did not expressively realize what he taught was contrary to what was taught by Holy Mother the Church prior to the Vatican II revolution for he was trained prior to the council. And try to make this argument with Bergoglio. JS]
If a Catholic were convinced that John Paul II is a formal, manifest heretic, should he then conclude that he is no longer pope?
No, he should not, for according to the "common" opinion (Suarez), or even the "more common" opinion (Billuart), theologians think that even an heretical pope can continue to exercise the papacy. For him to lose his jurisdiction, the Catholic bishops (the only judges in matters of faith besides the pope, by Divine will) would have to make a declaration denouncing the pope’s heresy. [bold added]
[How can a good Catholic argue in the face of St. Robert Bellarmine who claimed that all the Church fathers agree with his conclusion that a manifestly heretical pope would automatically lose the office by Divine Law? Or how could one in good faith completely ignore his arguments. There appears to me to be deliberate dishonesty here. And by citing the above authors, the Society is giving the false perception that these are the "common" opinions of all the theologians. JS]
According to the more common opinion, the Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church.
Now, in so serious a matter, it is not prudent to go against the common opinion.
But how can a heretic, who is no longer a member of the Church, be its leader or head?
The Dominican Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that an heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. For, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head.
The reason is that, whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul, a moral head, as is the Roman Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.
In short, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, but he is head of the visible Church by the jurisdiction and authority which he received, and these can co-exist with his own heresy. [bold added]
[The question is really "how can he be head of what he is not a member?" Nor can the assertion of personal faith being equal to membership be accurate, for if this were true, how could an occult member still be a member of the Church? Alas he maybe a dead member having committed a mortal sin against faith, but he is still a member. If occult heretics were not members of the Church, there would be no way of knowing who was a member of the Church and who was not. There would be no way of determining the signs necessary to belong to the Church as a visible society of men. JS]
How does their canonical argument fare?
The sedevacantists base their position on the apostolic constitution Cum ex Apostolatus of Pope Paul IV (1555-1559). But some good studies have shown that this constitution lost its legal force when the 1917 Code of Canon Law was promulgated. See, for example, the article of Fr. Albert, O.P., in Sel de la terre, Summer 2000, pp.67-78. What remains in effect from this constitution is its dogmatic teaching. And, consequently, it cannot be made to say more than the theological argument already examined.
Don’t the sedevacantists claim to find a confirmation of their theory in the errors of Vatican Council II and the harmful liturgical and canonical laws of the Conciliar Church?
Indeed, the sedevacantists think, in general, that the teaching of the Council should have been covered by the infallibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium, and consequently should not contain any errors. But, since there are errors, for example, on religious liberty, they conclude that Paul VI had ceased to be pope at that moment.
Really, if one accepted this argument, then it would be necessary to say that the whole Catholic Church disappeared then, too, and that "the gates of hell had prevailed" against her. For the teaching of the ordinary, universal magisterium is that of the bishops, of the whole Church teaching.
It is simpler to think that the teaching of the Council and of the Conciliar Church is not covered by the infallibility of the ordinary, universal magisterium for the reasons explained in the article of Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P., on the authority of the Council that appeared in Sel de la terre, "L’autorite du Concile," pp.32-63.
One of the arguments set forth there consists in showing that the Council does not present its teaching as "necessary for salvation" (which is logical, since those who profess this believe that it is possible to be saved without the Catholic Faith). Since this teaching is not authoritatively imposed, it is not covered by the guarantee of infallibility. The same thing can be said about the liturgical laws (the New Mass) and the canonical laws (the 1983 Code of Canon Law) promulgated by the most recent popes: they are not covered by infallibility, although normally they would be. [bold added]
[How so? Other than JP II not being the pope, what other possible defect in the promulgation rendered it a fallible act? Sedevacantists have presented one possible scenario. If the Society refuses this premise, they must become morally certain of another before they can make the claim that the Code contains error. Error in the new Code of Canon Law can be a symptom, but it can not be the CAUSE JS]
Aren’t the sedevacantists right, though, in refusing to name the pope at Mass in order to show that they are not in communion with ("una cum") a heretic (at least materially) and his heresies?
The expression "una cum" in the Canon of the Mass does not mean that one affirms that he is "in communion" with the erroneous ideas of the pope, but rather that one wants to pray for the Church "and for" the pope, her visible head.
In order to be sure of this interpretation, in addition to reading the erudite studies that have been made on this point, it is enough to read the rubric of the missal for the occasion of a bishop celebrating Mass. In this case, the bishop must pray for the Church "una cum ...me indigno famulo tuo," which does not mean that he prays "in communion with...myself, your unworthy servant" (which does not make sense!), but that he prays "and for ...myself, your unworthy servant."
But doesn’t St. Thomas Aquinas say that in the Canon one should not pray for heretics?
St. Thomas Aquinas does not say that one should not pray for heretics (Summa Theologica, III, Q. 79, A. 7, ad 2), but merely observes that, in the prayers of the Canon of the Mass, one prays for those whose faith and devotion are known to the Lord (quorum tibi fides cognita est et nota devotio). For, he says, so that this sacrifice obtain its effect (effectum habet) those for whom one prays must be "united to the passion of Christ by faith and charity." He does not say that praying for heretics is forbidden. He only means that this prayer will not have the same efficacy as one for a Catholic, and is not provided for in the Canon.
All that can be concluded from this affirmation of St. Thomas is that, if the pope is a heretic (which remains to be proven), then the prayer for him will not have the foreseen effect, "non habet effectum."
In conclusion, what should we think of sedevacantism?
Sedevacantism is a theory that has not been proven speculatively, and that it is imprudent to hold practically (an imprudence that can have very serious consequences). That is why Archbishop Lefebvre never adopted this position, and even forbade the priests of the Society of St. Pius X to profess it. We should have confidence in his prudence and theological sense.
Fr. Munoz points out that no saint in the Church’s history was ever a sedevacantist, while several openly and forcefully resisted a pope’s errors. Let us do likewise. (Translated from Sel de la terre, Spring 2001.)
1 Fr. Coache (1920-1994), Doctor of Canon Law, was the pastor of the parish of Montjavoult until 1973. He was one of the pioneers of the Catholic resistance against the Conciliar revolution. His parish bulletin evolved into The Combat for the Faith, which was widely distributed, and which he edited until his death. He organized with Msgr. Ducaud-Bourget the epic taking of St. Nicholas du Chardonnet in Paris, France, in February 1977.
2 "Cassiciacum" is the name of the place to which St. Augustine withdrew with some friends after his baptism, and where he studied and deepened his faith. In the late 1970’s, Fr. Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., together with a group of like-minded priests, founded a review called Les Cahiers de Cassiciacum to defend the sedevacantist position. The "Cassiciacum Thesis" is the name given to the theory that the pope is pope materialiter but not formaliter.
3 Billuart, De Fide, Diss. V, A. III, No. 3, obj. 2.
4 Of the diocese of Barcelona, Spain. He was ordained in 1952, and was vicar of a parish in Barcelona. With women active in the Catholic Action movement, he founded a contemplative religious community called the Oasis, near Barcelona. The special mission of this community is to pray for priests. Becoming acquainted with Archbishop Lefebvre in the early 1970’s, he chose to remain faithful to the traditional Mass. Archbishop Lefebvre had a deep affection for the community of the Oasis, whose apostolate he judged to be very necessary for the Church today, and would go there to visit. In October 2000, Fr. Munoz founded a second Oasis in the south of France."
[The whole document tries to mix other issues with the real issue of sedevacantism to attempt to disprove by association, solely relying on ad hominem arguments and false assertions. Of course given it has a long list of footnotes (um... four of which only one refers to theology), it is surprising the author could confuse issues (slight sarcasm), but the deliberate refusal to actually address sedevacantism directly and rely on these ad hominem arguments expresses the author's confidence in his own arguments. And we sedevacantists wonder why the poor members of the SSPX here in the United States are so confused when they are reading rubbish like this? No wonder they believe sedevacantists are a bunch of nuts.
"Aren’t the sedevacantists right, though, in refusing to name the pope at Mass in order to show that they are not in communion with ("una cum") a heretic (at least materially) and his heresies?"
And when the Society is deliberately tying sedevacantism and the una cum issue together as if they were part of the same issue, is it a wonder Society members believe that all sedevacantists hold the the una cum position? JS]
|Author:||Admin [ Fri Dec 19, 2014 10:41 pm ]|
|Post subject:||Re: Catechism on Sedevacantism|
James, this is by the Dominicans, not the Society of St. Pius X. The Dominicans were under suspicion of sedevacantism prior to the publication of this catechism; methinks the lady doth protest too much.
The Dominicans follow the discredited ecclesiology of Cajetan OP, Billuart OP, and Garrigou-Lagrange OP. The central issue? No understanding of the manner in which faith is necessary for membership in the Church. Hence, no grasp of the Patristic doctrine that habitual jurisdiction is radically incompatible with public heresy.
There's no Dominican tradition of ecclesiology to speak of, and the Jesuit tradition (i.e. Bellarmine's school) is not well studied by Dominicans; hence their general weakness in this area. (Ironically, Billuart is virtually quoting the Jesuit Suarez in the explanation given above, concerning physical and moral headship. )
Interestingly, the same cause underlies the Guerardian ideas. Guerard, a Dominican, invented his own theory rather than accept Bellarmine's doctrine. Bishop Sanborn used to be openly contemptuous of Bellarmine ("a Jesuit!"); I'm not sure if he is as open today as he was in the 1990s.
|Author:||Admin [ Fri Dec 19, 2014 10:44 pm ]|
|Post subject:||Re: Catechism on Sedevacantism|
Have you see this thread? http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forum ... f=2&t=1194
|Author:||James Schroepfer [ Fri Dec 26, 2014 5:35 pm ]|
|Post subject:||Re: Catechism on Sedevacantism|
Thanks John for bumping the thread!! I missed it. As usual, I appreciated the in-depth rebuttal you provided.
Still would like to make the point that while the SSPX may not be the authors of this, it is on the SSPX USA website making the argument their own. It is an embarrassment that it would still be posted after all this time, and they either need to remove it or pen a better defense.
|Page 1 of 1||All times are UTC|
|Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group