Loading ...
As our resident “expert” on the rightward fringe, I’ll forward this depressing development from Christ or Chaos making the rounds on Angelqueen:
Am I saying that Benedict XVI is not the pope? Well, I will repeat what I have been saying for the past few months: it is my belief that some future pope will indeed decide negatively about the legitimacy of the conciliar popes and that those who have already made a determination in this regard will be proved correct. Do I lean to the acceptance of the sedevacantist thesis? Once again, as I have said repeatedly and consistently, yes. The Pope, he is the Vicar of Christ and the Success of Saint Peter, the visible head of the true Church on earth, cannot be an enemy of souls, can he? He cannot be indifferent to the plight of the salvation of souls. It is clear to me that conciliarism is a counterfeit of Catholicism and has devastated souls.
Of course, if you’ve been reading what the doctor has had to say the last few months, you won’t be too surprised. When said sedevacantist recently came to visit Mary, Mother of God, the SSPX chapel in Syracuse, right after his first declarations of heresy, some of us Cornellians thought about attending, just to see the man in action. But I wonder if he’ll soon be banned from the SSPX speaking circuit too. It seems Gerry Matatics has had to put up with quite a deal of suffering himself.
I’ve heard it said that these sad tales point to the danger of trying to carry out full-time apostolic work on your own, and particularly in the married state. The Christian freed from obedience to a superior, a rule, and his Christian brethren is especially imperiled amid the confusions of the conciliar crisis. I’ve also heard it said, with somewhat more controversial an air, that if men forsake their duty to support financially their families for an apostolate it is no wonder that right evangelical fervor turns to brooding and error.
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
The sede-vacantists think the Pope of Rome is not the Pope. Why? They think he’s wrong. Well, to go back a step, sede-vacantists simply invariably deny the Pope. Their conclusion is simply the next step in the process…that is, he mustn’t be Pope….
It’s really weird.
Here is a little catechism on sedevacantism which the Angelus printed up a little while back, posted on our blog, perhaps you will find it interesting:
http://ecclesia-militans.blogspot.com/
Pax et Bonum!
Interesting link.
The whole issue really is a perversion of a handful of dogmas. Here are some from “Fundamentals of Catholic Doctrine”:
1) “The successors of Peter in the Primacy are the bishops of Rome. (De fide)…The dogma merely states that the Pontiff of Rome at any time is, in fact, the holder of the Primacy.” It oddly goes on to state that the dogma refers to the Divine Origin of the actual location of the Pope. That is, the Pope must be from Rome. Check it out…
2) “According to Christ’s ordinance, Peter is to have successors in his Primacy over the whole Church and for all time. (De fide)”
3) “Christ appointed the Apostle Peter to be the first of all the Apostles and to be the visible Head of the whole Church, by appointing him immediately and personally to the primacy of jurisdiction. (De fide).”
Conclusions:
#1–The Pope must be the Bishop of Rome by Divine Ordinance (Last I checked there was ONLY one Bishop of Rome anyways…).
#2–There shall be successors throughout all time by Divine Ordinance.
#3–The Pope shall be a visible head by Divine Ordinance (not hiding out).
This does not consider the Dogmas relating to Christ’s preservation of the Church from error. Such sedevacantist’s claims would suggest, in the words of Father William Most (speaking about a slightly different topic), that Christ’s words were “largely void.”
Hi, Johnboy,
You really are onto something with points #2 and #3, namely St. Peter having successors throughout time and that they will be visible. Constructive criticism, though: I don’t see how sedevacantists deny #1. They know that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome. They just argue that Benedict XVI is the false claimant to both offices (which are indissolubly linked). That particular point doesn’t give one much traction, at least not as I understand your point. Numbers 2 and 3 do, though. Thanks.
I thought #1 was the most convincing, since sede-vacantists wannabe Popes aren’t from Rome, right?
First off, by definition there are no sedevacantist wannabe popes. “Sedevacantist” comes from the Latin expression “sede vacante,” with the seat being *vacant.* Those people who think that there’s a pope in Montana or Kansas or Spain do not believe that the Seat of Peter is vacant but rather that it is filled by their man in Montana, Kansas, etc. These people are at least schismatic, and may be heretical since, as you noted, the whole Church has to able to identify who the Pope is. These particular schismatics do agree with the sedevacantists that adherence to the teachings of Vatican II and involvement in the execution of the Council’s decrees make Bl. John XXIII-Benedict XVI antipopes. They disagree on whether there is another, valid claimant to the Papacy, to which the sedevacantists say “no.”
Now, could one refute the “real-pope-is-in-Kansas” people by saying that their Pope isn’t “from Rome,” as you put it? As I see it, you couldn’t make an absolute, rigorous argument against them on this ground. Very few Popes in modern times (Pius XII being one notable exception) are native Romans. Of course you know that, what with our Polish and German pontiffs of late — I’m just laying some ground work. But does the real Pope have to be present in Rome, or even have set foot in the Eternal City? No. During the 1300s, the so-called “Babylonian Captivity of the Church,” the valid Popes ruled from Avignon, France, while the anti-Popes mis-ruled from Rome. The Avignon Popes were the real Bishops of Rome, but the schismatic anti-popes were firmly lodged in the Eternal City and wouldn’t allow the return of the real claimant. So there is nothing impossible or even improbable about the true Popes being absent from Rome, even for decades. Let’s say Al-Queda — God forbid! — destroys Rome and everything in it. The Pope might go into exile in North America, let’s say. Even if the real Popes ruled from St. Louis, for centuries on end, they would still be Bishops of Rome and not of St. Louis.
So the “real-pope-lives-in-Kansas” people are wrong, but I don’t think that they violate the rule concerning the Pope being the bishop of Rome.
“Even if the real Popes ruled from St. Louis, for centuries on end, they would still be Bishops of Rome and not of St. Louis.”
Of course, as soon as it became safe for Popes to rule from Rome again, presumably they would return to their actual diocese — or at least it would be incumbent upon them to do so.
As for the sedevacantists, the real ones, they fully acknowledge that the Papacy and the Bishopric of Rome are indissolubly linked. They simply argue that Benedict XVI and his four predecessors have possessed neither office. In claiming this, they violate #2 and #3, but not #1.
As I used to think along these lines before (thanks be to God!) I repented and reformed, you can trust what I have said so far about the sedevacantist position.
Actually, I’m glad Johnboy brought this up. We have a precise, latinate term in “sedevacantist,” but is there a term for all of the “real-pope-reigns-gloriously-in-Kansas” (or Montana, Spain, etc.) folks? I mean something less clunky than “antipope-promoting schismatics.” If there is no such term in existence, I propose “alibist,” from “alibi.” After all, these people’s claim is not that the Apostolic See is vacant but rather that its genuine occupant is “somewhere else.”
Ok, however, it doesn’t matter what a sedevacantist thinks per se. What matters is the truth. My point was that there is a Bishop who is publically the Bishop of Rome. This would suggest this is the Pope, regardless of what a sedevacantist thinks, based on Dogma #1. If a sedevacantists simply wanted to disprove that the Pope was not the Pope, then maybe they would have to defeat this Dogma. In other words they must demonstrate that the apparent Pope is neither a Bishop nor a Bishop of Rome. This is foolish…
The other point I tried to make was more icing on the cake; that these sedevacantist “Pope fill-ins” aren’t in actuality “Bishops of Rome,” residing in goofball locations and certainly only speaking on behalf of their own schismatic flock, and obviously not functioning as a Bishop of Rome, regardless of title (”Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” distinguishes between titles and the actual location, the latter being dogma).
Also, I do not think it’s appropriate to distinguish sedevacantists and these wanna be Popes for the purposes of this discussion. Obviously, the wanna be Popes do what they do because they are sedevacantists…they think the apparent Pope isn’t the Pope…
Perhaps technically they would be Albi-whatevers, but in my book they are still sede-vacantists (primarily due to their primary objection–>the seat of Peter is vacant…the rest is mere consequence).
“Ok, however, it doesn’t matter what a sedevacantist thinks per se. What matters is the truth.”
Granted. But I thought you wanted to detail exactly where they go wrong, with a possible view toward apologetic activity toward them. If you walk up to a sedevacantist and say, “You deny that the Bishopric of Rome and the Papacy are indissolubly linked!” they will laugh at you. They don’t deny it in theory. So, as I’ve said, you won’t make any headway this way. I see shades here of past arguments — you need to know your opponent very, very well. If you misidentify their errors, they will dismiss you, and rightly.
I’m not defending them, I’m actually trying to help you be better armed against their real arguments, instead of some straw man.
“My point was that there is a Bishop who is publically the Bishop of Rome. This would suggest this is the Pope, regardless of what a sedevacantist thinks, based on Dogma #1.”
But if you start with the premise that Benedict XVI is the Bishop of Rome, then you’ve begged the question. These people explicitly deny that he is the Bishop of Rome, so they simply won’t grant the premise.
Now, if you argued from #2 that there will always be a Pope, THEN you would be in the right. And if you argued from #3 that the whole Church cannot be deceived as to who the Pope is, THEN you would gain ground. Maybe if you worked #1 and #3 in tandem you would go somewhere, but not with #1 alone. Once again, I’m really trying to give constructive criticism here on how better to refute sedevacantists, I’m not defending them. And if you reject my constructive criticism, well, whatever.
“If a sedevacantists simply wanted to disprove that the Pope was not the Pope, then maybe they would have to defeat this Dogma. In other words they must demonstrate that the apparent Pope is neither a Bishop nor a Bishop of Rome. This is foolish…”
Well, of course it’s foolish. So is Lutheranism. If you want to begin a conversation with a sedevacantist with “that’s foolish,” then fine. But look, lots of these folks deny that the sacrament of Orders in the Novus Ordo is invalid, so, yeah, they will — foolishly — deny that Benedict is a bishop. They would not have said this about any of his predecessors, though, as (if I recall) they all became bishops under the Old Rite. And yes, they deny that Benedict XVI is the Bishop of Rome in the *very same breath* they deny he’s pope. So you simply won’t make them budge unless you work #2 and #3.
“The other point I tried to make was more icing on the cake; that these sedevacantist “Pope fill-ins” aren’t in actuality “Bishops of Rome,” residing in goofball locations and certainly only speaking on behalf of their own schismatic flock, and obviously not functioning as a Bishop of Rome, regardless of title (”Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” distinguishes between titles and the actual location, the latter being dogma).”
Johnboy, did you even read what I wrote? Please re-read it (preferably not at work, but when you have time). The sedevacantists DO NOT have fill-in Popes. The sedevacantists and the “alibists” are two different sets of people. For instance, if you told a sedevacantist, “You know, you guys think the real Pope is some dope in Kansas,” they would laugh at you, and rightly. Sedevacantists, by definition, don’t think this. When arguing, you need to know your opponents’ actual position, no matter how stupid. Consider yourself a doctor — your diagnosis needs to be more detailed than merely “cancer.” You need to know which cancer. If you tell a woman she has prostate cancer, you’ll quickly be out of a job. Same goes with apologetics — “Know thy enemy.”
Yes, you are absolutely correct that these people in goofball locations aren’t the Pope. But don’t you think some of the schismatic locals in Rome in the 1300s said to themselves, “The real Pope can’t be in some goofball location like Avignon. That’s in France! We have a real Bishop, functioning as the Bishop of Rome right here with us. So of course he’s the real deal.” Er, wrong! The real Pope was in a goofball location (Avignon) and he had virtually no control over his actual archdiocese back in Rome. And both the sedevacantist and alibist goofballs will tell you all about Avignon if you get into an argument with them, so you’d better know your stuff.
Furthermore, IF these alibist goofballs accept that their antipope is really the Sovereign Pontiff of the whole world despite everything else, they are certainly going to buy into the notion that he is also Bishop of Rome too. They’ll respond in kind: the evil world rejects him, he’s in exile, this is analogous to the Avignon Papacy, etc., etc. You need to start with #2 and #3, and then, once they’re softened up, #1 might help sway them. Otherwise, I don’t see how you’ll make much headway.
“Perhaps technically they would be Albi-whatevers, but in my book they are still sede-vacantists (primarily due to their primary objection–>the seat of Peter is vacant…the rest is mere consequence).”
They buy into a major part of the sedevacantist position — acceptance of Vatican II invalidates claims to the Apostolic See. That is how (so the theory goes) the see fell vacant for them to fill it. But they DO NOT hold that the see is vacant now, as I have tried to tell you several times now.
I hold that one of the purposes of this discussion is to learn how to approach both sets of people in apologetic contexts. At least that is part of my intention. Ergo, learning the difference is important since it’s important to them. From my own end, it matters little whether one is an atheist or an Anglican — but get into a conversation with either one, and they’ll perceive a profound difference!
Last response for awhile:
I did not receive your last post until after I sent the post that follows it. IF you define “sedevacantist” as merely “the so-called pope in Rome isn’t the real one,” then yes, everyone you’ve mentioned is in the sedevacantist camp. They all believe that the See fell vacant for awhile at least. (Unless they hold to the Siri hypothesis . . .) But your definition is faulty when it comes to the alibists’ position on whether the See is *currently* filled or not.
“The other point I tried to make was more icing on the cake; that these sedevacantist “Pope fill-ins” aren’t in actuality “Bishops of Rome,” residing in goofball locations and certainly only speaking on behalf of their own schismatic flock, and obviously not functioning as a Bishop of Rome, regardless of title.”
To summarize my earlier point, I think that once these people have swallowed the camel (the Pope is some guy in hicksville) they’re not going to strain out the gnat (they guy exercises no control in Rome itself).
“deny that the sacrament of Orders in the Novus Ordo is invalid”
Whoops — they deny that it is valid. They claim that it is invalid.
“Let’s say Al-Queda — God forbid! — destroys Rome and everything in it”
There’s an interesting development in Robert Hugh Benson’s ‘Lord of the World’ which includes this very scenario. Not only are the Pope and Rome destroyed but all the bishops of the world who were in conclave. Except, naturally, one poor priest who unbeknownst to him has been appointed bishop the day before.
So if he was appointed bishop, was he also ordained unawares? Otherwise, how does he become Bishop? As I understand it, any male Catholic, even a layman, can become Pope. They would just have to ordain him before he assumed the office. St. Ambrose of Milan was elected bishop while still a catechumen, so he had to be baptized before he could be confirmed and ordained/consecrated. Maybe a catechumen could even be elected Pope on similar terms — with the understanding that he accept Baptism, Confirmation, and Orders before fully assuming control.
There is a point to my bringing it up — apparently some of the fringe traditionalists believe that Benedict has really been elected Pope but that since (in their theory) the Novus Ordo rite of episcopal consecration (and of sacerdotal and diaconal ordination???) is invalid, he is not yet a bishop. So he has been rightly elected, but is in some sort of limbo till he gets properly ordained. Once again, this is all bogus, but one should be able to refute and evangelize such folks. So I am interested how Fr. Benson got around a similar dilemma — apparently, Lucy, no one to consecrate him to the episcopate. Thanks.
‘Twas I, not Lucy, who made the comment. And in thinking about it afterwards I realized that there was a hitch to my retelling of the story, undoubtedly due to my appalling bad memory. Being sure that Msgr Benson had the thing covered I had a quick reread. The hero, an English priest, was in fact already Cardinal-Prelate of England and was one of three Cardinals left after the destruction of Rome. The other two elected him Pope and promptly died. He moves to Nazareth and lives in hiding but somehow the Catholic world is assured that there is a Pope although they know not who he is, nor where he resides. And, of course, he meets the anti-Christ on the plain of Armageddon. I couldn’t find any quick references to episcopal consecration so I don’t know how that’s played out. Sorry to disappoint you!
The best part of the story is the chillingly plausable portrayal of the anti-Christ.
Whoops, sorry for the name mess-up. Thanks for the info. — he probably would have been a bishop already at the time of his election as Pope.
Oops! (it’s too late at night to be doing this!): his title was Cardinal-Protector (Prelate would automatically imply consecration) but I guess it’s safe to assume that somewhere along the line he was also consecrated.
Or I would suggest actual heresy…
Tobias, my points were not meant to be taken as an “apologetic” response per se.
They were meant to establish the fact that sedevacantism is minimally perverting “a handful of Dogmas.” Therefore, the fact that they believe this or that bears nothing upon the fact that their belief is incorrect and hence minimally proximate to heresy…
they believe this or that–Johnboy316
What I meant was the ways they justify this or that relating to the belief I was discussing.
Gotcha, Johnboy. Now we’re square.