Is sedevacantism Catholic?

[mikemac]

Mikemac - I doubt there are many, if any, sedevacantist priests within the ranks of the sspx.  They would most certainly have jumped ship by now.  However, there are likely a number of laymen who attend their chapels who hold the position.

Yeah I know, quite the number of laymen.  In fact the very first little group of SSPX members that I met in a voice chat Rosary group about 25 years ago were sedevacantists.  Now it makes you wonder whether all these schismatic sedes have taken their sede stance because of a 1979 conversation that was possibly fabricated.

When you keep bad company, sometimes your actions reflect it.  +Lefebvre uttered those words when visiting some early usa sspx priests who were later accounted among "the nine", and all sedevacantist.  They were eating dinner together, and +Lefebvre was surrounded by them.  It can happen without thinking.  Words just jump out of your mouth.

Well that would certainly make a lot of sense Philip G.  If that was the case then when he said "But I do not say that you cannot say the pope is not the pope" +Lefebvre would have been just referring to the sedevacantists that he was having dinner with, and not to members of the SSPX and other traditional Catholics.  I mean afterall +Lefebvre did say "I do not say that the pope is not the pope" and I'm sure +Lefebvre would want SSPX members to follow his example.  If this is the case then there is no contradiction between what the SSPX writes about sedevacantism being schismatic and what +Lefebvre has said about it in these lines.

Although in the video at around 17:00 minutes Cekada says there are sedevacantist priests within the ranks of the SSPX, and +Fellay did nothing about it.  And it looks like at least some of the quotes that Gog posted are by +Lefebvre.

The SSPX article in the opening post titled "Is sedevacantism Catholic?" was published in March 1998.  +Lefebvre died seven years earlier in 1991.  It looks like the SSPX administration got wise and took a tougher stand against sedevacantism after +Lefebvre's death.  Gog finishes his post by saying "4. The SSPX of today doesn't accurately represent the views of ABL."  I don't fully agree with that, you know, seeing +Lefebvre did say "I do not say that the pope is not the pope".  It's a shame that so many followed Cekada and others into schism.

Stubborn I named the thread "Is sedevacantism Catholic?" because that is the title of the SSPX article that I quoted in the opening post.  Yeah I agree with you, that "sedevacantism" is synonymous with "division" ("divisionism?").

[GiftOfGod]

The SSPX article in the opening post titled
Gog finishes his post by saying "4. The SSPX of today doesn't accurately represent the views of ABL."  I don't fully agree with that, you know, seeing +Lefebvre did say "I do not say that the pope is not the pope".  It's a shame that so many followed Cekada and others into schism.

You might not agree but enough SSPXers did to the point that they broke away (the Resistance) and claim to be true to what ABL believed. That had nothing do do with SVism, btw, but with the SSPX seeking reconciliation with Rome.

[Xavier]

The SSPX article in the opening post titled
Gog finishes his post by saying "4. The SSPX of today doesn't accurately represent the views of ABL."  I don't fully agree with that, you know, seeing +Lefebvre did say "I do not say that the pope is not the pope".  It's a shame that so many followed Cekada and others into schism.

You might not agree but enough SSPXers did to the point that they broke away (the Resistance) and claim to be true to what ABL believed. That had nothing do do with SVism, btw, but with the SSPX seeking reconciliation with Rome.

The Resistance is quasi-sedevacantist. Well known reality.

[diaduit]

Can I ask (and I'll duck for cover after) what is so bad about sedevacantism?

No one can know the absolute answer to the crisis and it is too far above my paygrade to understand it.  I am very happy with my SSPX fraternity (except for the vax thing, I won't deviate) but I can see how trads consider the seat vacant as I can also see why people fret over going to an SSPX mass and stick to a diocesan one.

[Stubborn]

Can I ask (and I'll duck for cover after) what is so bad about sedevacantism?

No one can know the absolute answer to the crisis and it is too far above my paygrade to understand it.  I am very happy with my SSPX fraternity (except for the vax thing, I won't deviate) but I can see how trads consider the seat vacant as I can also see why people fret over going to an SSPX mass and stick to a diocesan one.

The purpose of the idea of sedeism is to divide the faithful, it serves no other purpose. On that account alone, why expend the energy?

When we follow St. Thomas More's example, we remain the popes' good subjects, but God's first. When we follow the warning of St. Paul, we are vigilant adhering to faithful teachings, but let the teacher of errors be anathema, etc....

[GiftOfGod]

The purpose of the idea of sedeism is to divide the faithful, it serves no other purpose. On that account alone, why expend the energy?

Because to believe that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church and that Paul VI and his successors are Popes is to admit that the Church has defected.
Because Recognizing & Resisting is not rational to many trads.

There's other reasons. Do you want more?

[Stubborn]

The purpose of the idea of sedeism is to divide the faithful, it serves no other purpose. On that account alone, why expend the energy?

Because to believe that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church and that Paul VI and his successors are Popes is to admit that the Church has defected.
Because Recognizing & Resisting is not rational to many trads.

There's other reasons. Do you want more?

That is not so. The Church, which is Christ, cannot defect - and to even begin to believe such a thing as that were possible is not even Catholic. Popes can defect, but thankfully popes are not the Church. Christ is the head, the pope is His representative, His Vicar - and Christ will most assuredly judge them on their merits - in His own good time. 

That the Church can never defect is a foundational truth of the Catholic faith. And because such a thing is impossible, the sins of heresies of the conciliar popes are altogether irrelevant as regards the the longevity of the Church - as the last +60 years have proven.

And if the Church could defect because popes are heretics, sedeism is a totally useless reaction anyway because it accomplishes exactly nothing good, it is certainly not a remedy by any stretch of the imagination.

And what of St. Thomas More's example? Is it to be ignored, or only deemed irrational?

[Goldfinch]

And what of St. Thomas More's example? Is it to be ignored, or only deemed irrational?

St. Thomas More's is an inspiring example of moral fortitude but I'm afraid it's not relevant to the question of Sedevacantism and the crisis in the Church.

The nature of the king's power and rule is not analogous to the pope's role of supreme pastor and teacher of all Christians or to the magisterium's nature as inherently infallible in most situations and always safe to follow even when it does not present its teachings as definitive. If the magisterium of the Church from 1962 onwards is authentic, then it seems to entail defection given the absurd amount of heresies that have been taught for 60 years or so.

[diaduit]

The purpose of the idea of sedeism is to divide the faithful, it serves no other purpose. On that account alone, why expend the energy?

Because to believe that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church and that Paul VI and his successors are Popes is to admit that the Church has defected.
Because Recognizing & Resisting is not rational to many trads.

There's other reasons. Do you want more?

That is not so. The Church, which is Christ, cannot defect - and to even begin to believe such a thing as that were possible is not even Catholic. Popes can defect, but thankfully popes are not the Church. Christ is the head, the pope is His representative, His Vicar - and Christ will most assuredly judge them on their merits - in His own good time. 

That the Church can never defect is a foundational truth of the Catholic faith. And because such a thing is impossible, the sins of heresies of the conciliar popes are altogether irrelevant as regards the the longevity of the Church - as the last +60 years have proven.

And if the Church could defect because popes are heretics, sedeism is a totally useless reaction anyway because it accomplishes exactly nothing good, it is certainly not a remedy by any stretch of the imagination.

And what of St. Thomas More's example? Is it to be ignored, or only deemed irrational?

What is the rationale behind 'church defection' if the 'pope is not the pope' ? Why does it follow that because the pope is not the pope it means the church has defected?

[Stubborn]

St. Thomas More's is an inspiring example of moral fortitude but I'm afraid it's not relevant to the question of Sedevacantism and the crisis in the Church.

It is relevant in this thread, because the name of the thread asks if the idea of sedeism itself is Catholic. I am merely pointing out what *is* Catholic. As such, any idea that is contrary or otherwise disagreeable to what *is* Catholic, is not Catholic. 

What we know *is* Catholic, is to be the popes' good servant but God's first, because although St. Thomas More was speaking of the king and not the pope, his example applies to every situation, every circumstance, every person, and every question of importance throughout our whole life while we live in this world.

We can replace "king" with "parent" or "president" or "bishop" or "pope" or even "angel from heaven" or you name it, because the principle of what he said is Catholic.

St. Thomas More expressed the highest of all the principles within the Church, which is: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - which is my long winded explanation of why being the popes' good servant, but God's first is relevant - it is relevant always, because it *is* Catholic. 

The nature of the king's power and rule is not analogous to the pope's role of supreme pastor and teacher of all Christians or to the magisterium's nature as inherently infallible in most situations and always safe to follow even when it does not present its teachings as definitive. If the magisterium of the Church from 1962 onwards is authentic, then it seems to entail defection given the absurd amount of heresies that have been taught for 60 years or so.

The Church's magisterium is always infallible because they are truths, teachings handed down since the time of the Apostles. The pope is not the Church's magisterium, the pope is a man whose duty it is to promulgate, protect and preserve the Church's magisterium - needless to say the conciliar popes are guilty of not doing their duty - and other crimes against the Church - there's nothing we can do about that.

The Magisterium is, as Pope Pius IX explains in Tuas Libenter: "all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith."

Which is to say, the magisterium from Pentecost till the end of time is authentic. The teachings of the conciliar popes, hierarchy and church are not - because they are contrary or otherwise disagree with what the Church has always taught, which is the Church's magisterium.

[Kaesekopf]

For the record, this thread is a little inappropriate.  Per the Rule Clarification, what we've titled as dogmatic sedeplenism is not permitted here.

For further clarification, it should be noted that the section of the clarification below applies to dogmatic sedeplenism as well.  SD is a sedeplenist forum, and as such, one is quite free to hold that sedevacantism is theologically flawed or dangerous.  But since the theological opinion undergirding sedevacantism has not been condemned by the Church, it is against forum rules to imply an inferiority in Catholicity among sedevacantists (and vice versa).

As such, the title of this clarification will be changed to better reflect the full scope of this rule. 

However, it is also the stance of the forum that the question of the loss of a valid papacy in the occasion of heresy is an open one among Catholics with no binding, universal Magisterial teaching on the subject.  Therefore, Catholics are free to hold varying opinions on the legitimacy of the post-Conciliar papacies.  Any posts which claim or even imply a superiority in the faithfulness or orthodoxy of Catholics who hold a varying opinion on the state of the papacy will be subject to discipline.

This Forum takes a detente approach towards the sedevacantism vs sedeplenism debate, knowing full well no one here will resolve the Crisis in the Church. 

As the Forum Rules state, "Suscipe Domine is a traditional Catholic forum committed to preserving and defending traditional Catholicism.  Our common Catholic faith, as taught and professed throughout history, binds us at this forum.  Any Catholic is welcome here as long as they observe the rules and guidelines."  "Intra-squad" bickering is not productive.

[mikemac]

... But since the theological opinion undergirding sedevacantism has not been condemned by the Church, it is against forum rules to imply an inferiority in Catholicity among sedevacantists (and vice versa).
...

Are you sure that the Church has not condemned sedevacantism?  Why would the SSPX publish a four part document titled "Is sedevacantism Catholic?" (see opening post) that calls sedevacantisn schismatic if it hasn't been condemned by the Church?  Why would Catholics publish articles titled "A Refutation of the Heresy of Sedevacantism" if it hasn't been condemned by the Church?  This article mentions that the primacy of the Roman Pontiff is referred to in both Vatican I and Vatican II.

But this is your forum, so you are basically the pope here.  But you did say "and vice versa".  So if you are going to come down on dogmatic sedeplenism in this forum then you should also be coming down on dogmatic sedevacantism.  But this forum would need to be moderated daily, because as of late dogmatic sedevacantism has been rampant around here.  If not then it would not be a stretch to say that you are operating a sedevacantist forum.

[GiftOfGod]

So if you are going to come down on dogmatic sedeplenism in this forum then you should also be coming down on dogmatic sedevacantism.  But this forum would need to be moderated daily, because as of late dogmatic sedevacantism has been rampant around here.  If not then it would not be a stretch to say that you are operating a sedevacantist forum.

Give us some examples of rampant dogmatic sedevacantism as of late that requires daily moderation.

[TerrorDæmonum]

Give us some examples of rampant dogmatic sedevacantism as of late that requires daily moderation.

Examples, given with a little tongue in cheek.

But seriously, in my memory, this kind of post is very strange in this context. Normally, people would hold their opinions on that kind of matter in reservation instead of treating it as something obvious and binding to the extent other Catholics would want to be informed on every little thing.

I don't know where the lines are myself as I have very limited experience on this forum concerning this specific topic, but I'm pretty sure that casually holding one's SV stance in every subject on every matter in every thread explicitly is beyond any prior experiences I have had here.

[TerrorDæmonum]

Can I ask (and I'll duck for cover after) what is so bad about sedevacantism?

The danger I see in it is more of a "slippery slope" issue.

You can see it in the Sedevacantist bishop lines. If you track them, you see them go all over the place and become doubtful quickly. You have to be very mindful of the lineages and each individual consecration and ordination.

There is no appeal to ecclesiastical authority above the individuals, so there is no real examination of anything.

And each one often has slightly different views on the matter, some of which are incompatible with each other.

For those who strongly hold the opinion of Sedevacantism and still adhere to all doctrines of the church, I admire their staying power. It is one thing to find a particular Papal claim doubtful, but it is another to have an entire line of Popes held to be invalid, along with the rites used in ordinations and consecrations.

With the Sedevacantists who go that far, there are no groups of bishops in unity. There are no exorcisms. There are no appeals to the visible head of the Church on earth...for over a half a century, while all the while there are seemingly pretenders going through the motions as if nothing is wrong.

And then there is the issue of the Catholic Church besides the Roman Rite. How they treat the Eastern Churches can vary greatly. If they reject them too, then it is not just the NO that is the issue, but if they accept them, they are accepting those who are in communion with the Pope and unified.

When the Sedevacantist position is held this way, it is not just a rejection or doubt of a Pope at this point.