Questions for Non-Sedevacantists

[Michael Wilson]

Reginald Garrigou-LaGrange, O.P. "On Divine Revelation" V-II
pg. 278.

Christ instituted a hierarchical and monarchical society by conferring on the apostles the threefold power of teaching, ruling and sanctifying the faithful, as well as by conferring immediately upon Peter primacy in teaching and jurisdiction. (Matt. 16.1819). Christ promises to Peter a primacy that is not just one of honor but of jurisdiction.. (the keys of binding and loosing). These words not only express the power to interpret a law  that is already established but, rather, the right to impose and lift various obligations in the spiritual order, indeed in so efficacious way that whatsoever Peter binds on earth will also be bound n heaven. Therefore it is a question of primacy of jurisdiction.
pg. 280.
(feed my lambs...)Thus it is clear that Christ established the Church as a hierarchical society, conferring upon the apostles the power to teach, rule and sanctify the faithful, likewise conferring upon Peter primacy of teaching and jurisdiction.

[Miriam_M]

I overall agree with Chairman Joe, in that I don't find the various theological quotes that are included to be arguments FOR sedevacantism.  They're arguments supporting the apostolicity of the Church's leaders and her teaching authority.

This is why I have said many times, and all the trad priests I have spoken with agree with me, that cut-and-paste quotes of prior theologians are not collectively proof of the illegitimacy of a particular later pope. Many of the theologians quoted would not have necessarily agreed that any of the popes of the last 60 years are frauds, antipopes, heretics, etc.  Clearly, we also do not know that these quoted theologians would NOT have questioned the legitimacy of modern popes, but merely selecting statements and then drawing sedevacantist conclusions from those is not, I'm sorry, an exercise in logic.

For example, while I find it believable that Garrigou-La Grange -- and for that matter, St. Thomas -- would question the orthodoxy of specific statements from various popes, that is not the same thing as their conviction about an Empty Chair. (They wouldn't necessarily apply the first to the second.)

[Baylee]

What the numerous quotes do show is that if these men were/are legitimate Catholic authority, then all Trads shouldn't disobey them and rather should accept their disciplinary teachings, including attending the Novus Ordo liturgy/not judging it to be harmful or lacking.

[Michael Wilson]

This is why I have said many times, and all the trad priests I have spoken with agree with me, that cut-and-paste quotes of prior theologians are not collectively proof of the illegitimacy of a particular later pope. Many of the theologians quoted would not have necessarily agreed that any of the popes of the last 60 years are frauds, antipopes, heretics, etc.  Clearly, we also do not know that these quoted theologians would NOT have questioned the legitimacy of modern popes, but merely selecting statements and then drawing sedevacantist conclusions from those is not, I'm sorry, an exercise in logic.

The quotes are necessarily cut and paste because it is impractical to post various pages from a theological manual for nobody would read it. The same goes for posting more than one paragraph from a Papal Encyclical.
I also find it unusual that when those who challenge the conclusion of the sed position; do not at least verify the accuracy of the quotes; or challenge the conclusion with other quotes that would demonstrate that the quotes were taken out of context or cut and pasted to make them say something that they do not.
Instead the usual objection offered is merely an gratuitous assertion, such as on this thread where the quote from Trent was posted and that from Pius VI, the response was: this means only for the ceremonies and discipline of that very moment not for those afterwards; and that there was more than one note of condemnation therefore the Pope was being ambiguous.

For example, while I find it believable that Garrigou-La Grange -- and for that matter, St. Thomas -- would question the orthodoxy of specific statements from various popes, that is not the same thing as their conviction about an Empty Chair. (They wouldn't necessarily apply the first to the second.)

Fair enough. But what about not just a random heretical statement from time to time but a whole series of heretical statements for many years? And the replacement of the Catholic faith with a novel, ecumenical, humanistic religion? Would St. Thomas or Fr. G.L.G. Even find such a scenario plausible? Would either one recognize the Catholic Church in its current version of the Conciliar Church? Would they submit to the doctrinal pronouncements of the Council; the Conciliar Popes? Offer the N.O.M.?  Participate in Assissi? etc.etc. If the response is "no", then how would they explain their apparent dis-obedience and non-subjection to the men that many here claim were the Popes?
The opponents of sedism do not have a coherent theological framework to explain the current crisis; on the contrary they systematically reduce the teaching and jurisdictional authority of the Church to the point where it is rendered meaningless. The sanctity of the Church is practically denied, as she can lead men into sin and perdition by her false teachings, discipline, a ceremonies.

[Michael Wilson]

overall agree with Chairman Joe, in that I don't find the various theological quotes that are included to be arguments FOR sedevacantism.  They're arguments supporting the apostolicity of the Church's leaders and her teaching authority.

The Apostolicity of her leaders is affirmed in the quotes but also their infallibility in matters of discipline.

[Baylee]

This is why I have said many times, and all the trad priests I have spoken with agree with me, that cut-and-paste quotes of prior theologians are not collectively proof of the illegitimacy of a particular later pope. Many of the theologians quoted would not have necessarily agreed that any of the popes of the last 60 years are frauds, antipopes, heretics, etc.  Clearly, we also do not know that these quoted theologians would NOT have questioned the legitimacy of modern popes, but merely selecting statements and then drawing sedevacantist conclusions from those is not, I'm sorry, an exercise in logic.

The quotes are necessarily cut and paste because it is impractical to post various pages from a theological manual for nobody would read it. The same goes for posting more than one paragraph from a Papal Encyclical.
I also find it unusual that when those who challenge the conclusion of the sed position; do not at least verify the accuracy of the quotes; or challenge the conclusion with other quotes that would demonstrate that the quotes were taken out of context or cut and pasted to make them say something that they do not.
Instead the usual objection offered is merely an gratuitous assertion, such as on this thread where the quote from Trent was posted and that from Pius VI, the response was: this means only for the ceremonies and discipline of that very moment not for those afterwards; and that there was more than one note of condemnation therefore the Pope was being ambiguous.

For example, while I find it believable that Garrigou-La Grange -- and for that matter, St. Thomas -- would question the orthodoxy of specific statements from various popes, that is not the same thing as their conviction about an Empty Chair. (They wouldn't necessarily apply the first to the second.)

Fair enough. But what about not just a random heretical statement from time to time but a whole series of heretical statements for many years? And the replacement of the Catholic faith with a novel, ecumenical, humanistic religion? Would St. Thomas or Fr. G.L.G. Even find such a scenario plausible? Would either one recognize the Catholic Church in its current version of the Conciliar Church? Would they submit to the doctrinal pronouncements of the Council; the Conciliar Popes? Offer the N.O.M.?  Participate in Assissi? etc.etc. If the response is "no", then how would they explain their apparent dis-obedience and non-subjection to the men that many here claim were the Popes?
The opponents of sedism do not have a coherent theological framework to explain the current crisis; on the contrary they systematically reduce the teaching and jurisdictional authority of the Church to the point where it is rendered meaningless. The sanctity of the Church is practically denied, as she can lead men into sin and perdition by her false teachings, discipline, a ceremonies.

Well said.  All of it.  I would like to see just one quote from the Church that states that it is possible for the Church's discipline or liturgy to be harmful to souls....or even just inadequate/not preferential?  Can any of the non-sedes provide one?  Just one?

[Baylee]

This is why I have said many times, and all the trad priests I have spoken with agree with me, that cut-and-paste quotes of prior theologians are not collectively proof of the illegitimacy of a particular later pope. Many of the theologians quoted would not have necessarily agreed that any of the popes of the last 60 years are frauds, antipopes, heretics, etc.  Clearly, we also do not know that these quoted theologians would NOT have questioned the legitimacy of modern popes, but merely selecting statements and then drawing sedevacantist conclusions from those is not, I'm sorry, an exercise in logic.

The quotes are necessarily cut and paste because it is impractical to post various pages from a theological manual for nobody would read it. The same goes for posting more than one paragraph from a Papal Encyclical.
I also find it unusual that when those who challenge the conclusion of the sed position; do not at least verify the accuracy of the quotes; or challenge the conclusion with other quotes that would demonstrate that the quotes were taken out of context or cut and pasted to make them say something that they do not.
Instead the usual objection offered is merely an gratuitous assertion, such as on this thread where the quote from Trent was posted and that from Pius VI, the response was: this means only for the ceremonies and discipline of that very moment not for those afterwards; and that there was more than one note of condemnation therefore the Pope was being ambiguous.

For example, while I find it believable that Garrigou-La Grange -- and for that matter, St. Thomas -- would question the orthodoxy of specific statements from various popes, that is not the same thing as their conviction about an Empty Chair. (They wouldn't necessarily apply the first to the second.)

Fair enough. But what about not just a random heretical statement from time to time but a whole series of heretical statements for many years? And the replacement of the Catholic faith with a novel, ecumenical, humanistic religion? Would St. Thomas or Fr. G.L.G. Even find such a scenario plausible? Would either one recognize the Catholic Church in its current version of the Conciliar Church? Would they submit to the doctrinal pronouncements of the Council; the Conciliar Popes? Offer the N.O.M.?  Participate in Assissi? etc.etc. If the response is "no", then how would they explain their apparent dis-obedience and non-subjection to the men that many here claim were the Popes?
The opponents of sedism do not have a coherent theological framework to explain the current crisis; on the contrary they systematically reduce the teaching and jurisdictional authority of the Church to the point where it is rendered meaningless. The sanctity of the Church is practically denied, as she can lead men into sin and perdition by her false teachings, discipline, a ceremonies.

Well said.  All of it.  I would like to see just one quote from the Church that states that it is possible for the Church's discipline or liturgy to be harmful to souls....or even just inadequate/not preferential?  Can any of the non-sedes provide one?  Just one?

Crickets.

[Miriam_M]

This is why I have said many times, and all the trad priests I have spoken with agree with me, that cut-and-paste quotes of prior theologians are not collectively proof of the illegitimacy of a particular later pope. Many of the theologians quoted would not have necessarily agreed that any of the popes of the last 60 years are frauds, antipopes, heretics, etc.  Clearly, we also do not know that these quoted theologians would NOT have questioned the legitimacy of modern popes, but merely selecting statements and then drawing sedevacantist conclusions from those is not, I'm sorry, an exercise in logic.

The quotes are necessarily cut and paste because it is impractical to post various pages from a theological manual for nobody would read it. The same goes for posting more than one paragraph from a Papal Encyclical.
I also find it unusual that when those who challenge the conclusion of the sed position; do not at least verify the accuracy of the quotes; or challenge the conclusion with other quotes that would demonstrate that the quotes were taken out of context or cut and pasted to make them say something that they do not.
Instead the usual objection offered is merely an gratuitous assertion, such as on this thread where the quote from Trent was posted and that from Pius VI, the response was: this means only for the ceremonies and discipline of that very moment not for those afterwards; and that there was more than one note of condemnation therefore the Pope was being ambiguous.

For example, while I find it believable that Garrigou-La Grange -- and for that matter, St. Thomas -- would question the orthodoxy of specific statements from various popes, that is not the same thing as their conviction about an Empty Chair. (They wouldn't necessarily apply the first to the second.)

Fair enough. But what about not just a random heretical statement from time to time but a whole series of heretical statements for many years? And the replacement of the Catholic faith with a novel, ecumenical, humanistic religion? Would St. Thomas or Fr. G.L.G. Even find such a scenario plausible? Would either one recognize the Catholic Church in its current version of the Conciliar Church? Would they submit to the doctrinal pronouncements of the Council; the Conciliar Popes? Offer the N.O.M.?  Participate in Assissi? etc.etc. If the response is "no", then how would they explain their apparent dis-obedience and non-subjection to the men that many here claim were the Popes?
The opponents of sedism do not have a coherent theological framework to explain the current crisis; on the contrary they systematically reduce the teaching and jurisdictional authority of the Church to the point where it is rendered meaningless. The sanctity of the Church is practically denied, as she can lead men into sin and perdition by her false teachings, discipline, a ceremonies.

A couple of things:
1.  One of the major problems with lay people discussing the possibility of an empty chair with regard to particular popes (not the possibility in general or the reality in history) is the insistence on a black-or-white "answer" for a modern pope. This is expressed as "the non-sede position" or even the "anti-sede" position. 

I don't think most lay people in 2023 regard the situation as that binary, to borrow a stupid word from current culture.  To fail to embrace the assertion that a current or deceased Pope is definitively a false pope is merely a position of suspending one's own personal authority in respect toward legitimate authority. Yes, I recognize the hurdle of trusting the current See in its own arguable slate of apostates within it, but that perception does not in itself transfer authority to laypeople or to anyone else not authorized to "declare" an empty seat of a current Pope.

There is at least a 3rd, if not 4th position. 

(3) That a Catholic recognizes heresy and apostasy when he sees it in specific statements but understands that even "automatic" leave of office, in perception or appearance, does not in fact yet automatically remove a man from the papacy. Only a formal process can do that.  Until then, separating ourselves from the See by joining a separatist or independent group is illegitimate and potentially dangerous, should our subjective perceptions later be judged in error.  This would be a "default" sedeplenist position, though one surrounded by doubt and one coupled with caution, given the affirmative requirement of a Catholic to avoid scandalous company and communications, including those proceeding from the clergy.

(4) That a Catholic lacks the self-confidence to make even a tentative conclusion about apostasy or heresy but is sufficiently doubtful about a current pope's orthodoxy that he finds it difficult to come down on one side or the other and accept a label for declining to do so.

#3 and #4 are in fact theological positions; I deny that they are not.  They accord with statements/talks of trad priests, several of which I have uploaded to this website previously.  These same priests acknowledge the apostate statements of this Pope and this hierarchy but similarly distinguish between statements and canonical status, or virtual (likely) status and canonical (confirmed) status.  In short, these priests assert that judging the orthodoxy of a cleric is not interchangeable with judging his legitimacy to hold office -- before the Church judges that.  So "automatic" loss of Office, while a principle, is not activated until the Church pronounces it as fact, which will usually be a retroactive event.

The SSPX also weighed in on the same topic; similarly, I posted that video some time ago here as well. (Many weeks ago)

2. I don't have any duty to continue to offer the same or new theological content in support of a default (but reluctant) SP position. It's the standard position of the Church herself.  Any position allowing a layman to judge -- let alone insisting that a layman judge -- instead of the hierarchy --  is not a position in accord with Catholic Tradition.