www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Sedevacantism

Personally, I have little sympathy for sedevacantists. They have left the Church (contrary to what they want to believe) and formed their own Church. Once you separate from a legitimately elected Pope, how are you different from any heretic or schismatic in the past?

I do have sympathy, however, for those who have struggled with the changes that occurred after Vatican II. It is hard to make such major changes to something so dear and important to people. It is human nature to be strongly attached to the outward form of something and begin to confuse it with the substance of the matter.

Personally I think that Vatican II and many of the changes associated with it have been a marvelous gift to the Church - all rites and Churches within her. I personally love the Novus Ordo Mass, when properly done - I find it very spiritually enriching. I also think it is because of Vatican II that the Roman Church has begun the process of fully recognizing the Eastern Catholic Churches (as well as the much-needed process of trying to reunite with the Orthodox Churches).

It always takes time for a Council's impact to work its way through the Church. The first 20-30 years were very difficult, and much harm was done. But this is due to those who tried to hijack the Council, not the Council itself. Those people are dying off, though, and I think that the Church is in a much better position to evangelize the world today than they would have been if the Council had not happened. Personally, I have no desire to go back to a time of endless anathemas and condemnations of anything outside of strict Latin theology. I also have no desire to return to a time when Pope=Church.

Regarding sedevacantists, I've always wondered, when two popes disagree, how do you determine which one was legitimate and which was not? Maybe it's John Paul II that is legitimate and Pius XI that was not? Who is the infallible determiner of which Pope is legit?

(BTW, for those who don't know me, I'm a Catholic convert who fully believes in the infallibility of the Church, as well as the infallibility of the Pope. But unlike some traditionalists, I don't think everything that comes out of the mouth of any Pope before John XXIII was infallible. A brief study of history shows the error of this view).

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out the Church is undermined when we now pray for what was specifically proscribed in PiusIX's Syllabus of Errors. Popes take an oath not to change or contradict those before them upon coronation.

When two seem to disagree, I would not follow the new in light of the oath of Papal Office. In Medieval canon law, the earlier view always took precedence.

Well, I'm not even close to a rocket scientist, so perhaps it's hard for me to understand.

Is PiusIX's Syllabus of Errors infallible and binding for all time? Are we bound to accept every papal statement, regardless of it's content and original application?

I have no problem contradicting a former papal statement if the current Pope contradicts it, as long as it is not on the level of unchanging dogma (such as the Trinity or the Assumption of Mary). I don't think the Syllabus falls under this category.
Note I don't think we should just throw out old practices either; much prayer and thought must be attached to any change, but I think this is the case with this Pope.

One example I heard from a sedevacantist was that the Pope promulgated the new Code of Canon Law which allows for Orthodox to receive communion under certain circumstances. Since this contradicts the 1917 Code, this Pope is a heretic and therefore not legitimate (and he had other reasons, of course). This reasoning is a joke, and reduces the Catholic Faith from an infinite, living mystery to a dead list of previous statements. There is no reason the Church cannot revise the practice of our Faith, in keeping with it's unchanging components. And I've yet to see an example by sedevacantists and hard-core traditionalists that was not just disciplines implemented for a certain time and place. Just because the Church feels today that a previous discipline or practice from the past is no longer valid does not make them heretical.

But this does not mean that we cannot disagree with the prudence of making certain changes. Personally, I think most of them have been good ideas, but if someone disagrees, that is fine. It is when we cross the line to calling the Pope a heretic, or calling his actions heretical that I think we put ourselves in a dangerous position. We are to give our spiritual leaders, most especially our bishop and the Pope, an "obedience of faith", even when we disagree with them.

Dear SEDE,

Sorry, my brother in Christ and Mary.

I don't remember the Holy Spirit leaving the church of Christ. Our Lord promised that He would never leave us. He entrusted to the apostles and their sucessors, Peter being the head, full authority over the Church.

By their fruits you will know them. Pope JPII
shows the fruit of a disciple of Christ. I pledge my obedience to John Paul II, successor of St. Peter and Vicar of Jesus Christ.

God bless you,

Paul

Thank you, Father Deacon. I misread SEDE's original post and mistook the "V" for an "X." Two very different animals.

Coalesco,

Don't knock Ott! The East just charms the pants right off of me, and I'm a traditional Latin who reads Ott. The two are not mutually incompatible.

Logos Teen

Pope Honorius
Pope Liberius
Popes can be wrong if not teaching ex cathedra on faith and morals.
If the current occupant contradicts 200 predecessors, call me crazy, I dont go with the new guy on that particular quite fallible issue.
They say the previous popes were products of their age.
mirrors anyone?
Yeah, products of a Christian Age, not a secular one.

I thought you might be interested in this since Liberius was brought up.

Comments by Jim Larrabee: As to the case of Liberius, which Bellarmine treats in book IV, chapter IX at considerable length, he is there concerned not to prove that Liberius was not deposed, and lawfully deposed (both of which he fully admits), but that the Liberius case does not argue against infallibility, nor was Liberius personally a heretic. This involves various distinctions which people now are failing to make, but are evident to any theologian. Perhaps I could quote this at length in future, but for now, let it be said that, while Liberius resisted heresy both before and after the period of his lapse and deposition (and that is what the quote from a later Pope undoubtedly refers to), he failed to do so for a given time. During this time the Roman clergy "deposed" him, i.e. they considered the papacy to be vacant, and accepted St. Felix as Pope.

For example (Bellarmine): "In addition, unless we are to admit that Liberius defected for a time from constancy in defending the Faith, we are compelled to exclude Felix II, who held the pontificate while Liberius was alive, from the number of the Popes: but the Catholic Church venerates this very Felix as Pope and martyr. However this may be, Liberius neither taught heresy, nor was a heretic, but only sinned by external act [emphasis in original Latin], as did St. Marcellinus, and unless I am mistaken, sinned less than St. Marcellinus." (lib. IV, c. 9, no. 5)

Further, after explaining that Felix was for a time an antipope, he continues (no. 15): "Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.

more on this at: www.stthomasaquinas.net [stthomasaquinas.net]

There is a group that is currently causing problems in Ukraine who have placed themselves under schismatic bishops who are promopting old style uniatisms. Recently the Cardinal Husar informed the Catholic world he had excommunicated a priest who had placed himself under a bishop outside the church. The Society of St Josaphat is now doing to the Byzantine Church in Ukraine what the Society of St Pius X did to the Latin Church.

Very interesting topic.

This is about the Ukrainian bishops who have recently declared the See of Peter vacant. Does anyone have any followup on this? You may email me at stphilomenahelp@yahoo,com if you wish. God bless you.

Paul,

Welcome to the forum. Quite honestly, the topic is the subject of a 7 year old thread - and not of particular interest here, as sedevacantism is, generally, not of much concern to the East. We have a lot of issues that plague us, but it's not generally among them.

Even the Ukrainian 'bishops' of whom Paul spoke aren't really sedevacantists. Classically, they fall into the category of being vagante episcopi. You can find other threads regarding them here on the site


This one includes some links to others, here and elsewhere.

Many years,

Neil

The only vacant sede that matters to me is the sede of the Metropolitan Archbishop of Pittsburgh; and I'm not even remotely what you might call "worked-up" about it {{{yawn}}}}

Paul,

Someone has brought to my attention that some folks are under the misconception that the Ukrainian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church [uogcc.org.ua] - another among the many 'independent' Ukrainian "Orthodox' and 'Catholic' 'churches' - is sedevacantist.

In fact, it isn't - which is about the only good thing one can say about it. Otherwise, it's just best described as strange.

Many years,

Neil

Thanks for the input regarding the Ukranian Bishops who have declared the Chair of St. Peter vacant.

Paul,

I think you misread my last post. There are NO Ukrainian bishops, Catholic or otherwise - not even those whose episcopal status is questionable at best and blatantly invalid at worst - who have declared that they deem the papacy to be vacant.

Many years,

Neil