Sedevacantism

Post Reply
CThomas
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:28 am

Sedevacantism

Post by CThomas » Wed May 20, 2009 2:47 pm

I was hoping A Catholic on this board might help me with something about sedevacantism. This is a question I've asked elsewhere, but have not yet been able to figure out. I'm thinking at the moment of Gerry Matatics, who has adopted this view. I'm reproducing his nutshell sketch of his arguments below from his site. What puzzles me is why, from a Catholic point of view, his arguments aren't susceptible to the argument you hear all the time from Catholic apologists that the individual Christian lacks the "authority" to make these sorts of theological judgments on his own (and hence that each minor premise of his syllogisms cannot be supported). Because Matatics is very well versed on Catholic theology, I'm quite confident that this just can't be a simple answer that Matatics just missed. Someone that well versed on Catholic doctrine and apologetics is very unlikely to have made elementary mistakes like that. (The man was a professional apologist with the primary Catholic apologetics organization, for crying out loud.) So I guess my question is why aren't Matatics's arguments below susceptible to that simple-minded argument? And, if they are not, then how would a mainstream Catholic respond to Matatics's argument?

Thanks, and best regards.

CThomas (text from Matatics below)

The case for "sedevacantism" can be succinctly stated in three separate syllogistic arguments. Any one of these three arguments is sufficient in itself to demonstrate that Benedict XVI cannot possibly be pope and is as likely a candidate as we'll perhaps ever see for the prophecy of the "German antipope" of the last days who will lead many astray (see abovementioned anthologies of Catholic prophecies). But the combination of all three composes quite a formidable case. The syllogisms are as follows:

Syllogism #1: No true bishop, no true pope

1) Major premise: A man who is not a validly ordained bishop cannot function as the bishop of Rome, i.e., as the pope. [Note: a non-bishop -- even a layman -- can be, and sometimes has been, elected to the papacy, but in every case he had to receive the necessary ordination(s) to ascend, however quickly, up through the required ranks of the clergy before he began to reign as pope.]

2) Minor premise: But Joseph Ratzinger is not a validly ordained bishop, having received (in May 1977) the demonstrably invalid episcopal ordination rite promulgated in June 1968 by antipope Paul VI. (For a devastating demonstration of the fact that the new rite is invalid, read the brilliant 12-page article by Fr. Anthony Cekada, or at least the less technical two-page summary.

3) Conclusion: Therefore Joseph Ratzinger cannot be a true pope.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Syllogism #2: No true orthodoxy, no true pope

1) Major premise: A manifest heretic cannot be a true pope.

[See Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Paul IV's 1559 Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio (the English translation of which is posted on this website in the "Library of Key Documents" section), the unanimous consent of the Fathers and doctors of the Church, as documented in articles by Fr. Cekada on sedevacantism on his website, http://www.traditionalmass.org/, as well as articles on http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/.)

2) Minor premise: But Joseph Ratzinger is a manifest heretic, as can be amply demonstrated from his numerous writings and addresses both before and since his "papal" election. (See articles on Ratzinger on http://www.traditionalmass.org/, http://www.novusordowatch.org/, or http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/.)

3) Conclusion: Therefore Joseph Ratzinger cannot be a true pope.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Syllogism #3: No true Church, no true pope

1) Major premise: A head of a non-Catholic church cannot simultaneously be the head of the Catholic Church, i.e., the pope.

2) Minor premise: But Joseph Ratzinger is the head of a non-Catholic Church, namely the Vatican II or postconciliar Church, the non-Catholic nature of whose doctrines, sacraments and worship, and laws can be readily demonstrated by comparing them to the perennial doctrines, sacraments and worship, and laws of the Catholic Church down through the ages. (See articles on above-mentioned websites.)

3) Conclusion: Therefore Joseph Ratzinger cannot be the head of the Catholic Church, i.e., the pope.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

An astute observer might notice that the order in which I have presented these syllogisms, moving from the simpler to the more challenging: each of the above three syllogisms demands less material to be surveyed and studied, less of a mental effort, and less of a radical conclusion than the syllogism that follows it.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Sedevacantism

Post by Paidion » Wed May 20, 2009 5:19 pm

For those who are not familiar with the term "Sedevacantism", there is an excellent wikipedia article, short but to the point:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedevacantism
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
thomas
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:51 am
Location: Panama

Re: Sedevacantism

Post by thomas » Sat May 23, 2009 7:03 am

In my opinion He has not made elementary mistakes , but rather because of his dislike of Vatican II , is deliberatly misleading. The sedecavants would like you to believe that thier charges of heresy are not personal but are based on the anti-modernist decrees from Pope Pius X , which they say are still in force , i.e. dogmatic.

Pascendi dominici gregis was a Papal letter promulgated by Pope Pius X on 8 Sep , 1907.
Lamentabili Sane Exitua a 1907 syllibus , and
The Oath against Modernism was issued by Pius X on Sep. 1 , 1910

Thier problem is that , while these were inforcable , they were not immutable. They were properly overridden by the apx. 2000 bishops of Vatican II in 1965 and by Paul VI in 1968.

As for Syllogism #1 , a bishop is elevated by virtue of his valid selection , not on the basis of a rite. Were that not so , Peter could not have been Pope as it cannot be demonstrated tha the took any oath at all when he became bishop of Rome. And whats more , this "demonstrably invalid " oath has never been challenged , let alone refused by any bishop in the 41 years of it's exixtance.

Syllogism #2 Heresy based on the above invalid documents , thus a personal charge of no standing.
Syllogism #3 see above

This is why sedevacantism has never had more than a miniscule following , and is generally ignored.
Dios te bendiga y te guarde

CThomas
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:28 am

Re: Sedevacantism

Post by CThomas » Wed May 27, 2009 3:43 pm

Thomas, thanks for the reply (which I only now managed to get back and find). That's very helpful and interesting. I want to follow up, though. The reason I ask the question is that to me it seems to touch on some broader issues relating to the Catholic/Protestant dispute and the requirement of individual submission to the Church on questions of doctrine. I get the sense in these sorts of discussions that part of the Catholic claim is not so much that the Protestant errs on this or that matter of doctrine (although the Catholic does claim that too), but rather that the individual Christian simply has no right to decide such matters for himself, at least once the Catholic Church has decided the question.

I'm less interested in the rightness or wrongness of Matatics's syllogisms than about his right as an individual Christian to entertain the arguments in the first place, given that the institution of the Catholic Church has clearly adopted the validity of the recent Popes. If Matatics has the right to ask these questions (and I take it from your response that he does, and that his problem is simply that he answers them wrongly in your view), then why don't I have a similar right as a Christian to make the argument that the Church has erred centuries earlier on other doctrines? One frequently comes across condemnations of relying on these sorts of "private judgments" in the context of reading the Bible and whatnot. Why, then, may Matatics make these sorts of private judgments about the doctrinal matters he opines upon?

Thanks for yuour consideration, and best regards.

CThomas

User avatar
thomas
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:51 am
Location: Panama

Re: Sedevacantism

Post by thomas » Thu May 28, 2009 5:01 am

CThomas wrote:Thomas, thanks for the reply (which I only now managed to get back and find). That's very helpful and interesting. I want to follow up, though. The reason I ask the question is that to me it seems to touch on some broader issues relating to the Catholic/Protestant dispute and the requirement of individual submission to the Church on questions of doctrine. I get the sense in these sorts of discussions that part of the Catholic claim is not so much that the Protestant errs on this or that matter of doctrine (although the Catholic does claim that too), but rather that the individual Christian simply has no right to decide such matters for himself, at least once the Catholic Church has decided the question.

I'm less interested in the rightness or wrongness of Matatics's syllogisms than about his right as an individual Christian to entertain the arguments in the first place, given that the institution of the Catholic Church has clearly adopted the validity of the recent Popes. If Matatics has the right to ask these questions (and I take it from your response that he does, and that his problem is simply that he answers them wrongly in your view), then why don't I have a similar right as a Christian to make the argument that the Church has erred centuries earlier on other doctrines? One frequently comes across condemnations of relying on these sorts of "private judgments" in the context of reading the Bible and whatnot. Why, then, may Matatics make these sorts of private judgments about the doctrinal matters he opines upon?

Thanks for yuour consideration, and best regards.

CThomas

Any christian has the right of private judgement , ultimately he will stand before God who will be the judge.

At the same time every church has the right and obligation to consider it's teachings to be the truth. For that reason the church has a right to expell anyone for advocating positions against their truth. It causes dissention and confusion among the members. This is not only a catholic position , they are just more hard-nosed about it. There are areas open for discussion , such as practice or escatology , but not the fundamentals (dogma) or morals.

Matetics expelled himself from the RCC for advocating a position against a fundamental of the church. In the same manner I could not very well advocate infant baptism in a Baptist church. I would not belong there.

In my opinion, where private judgements go bad , is when they become so pervasive that they lead to a sense that everything is merely an opinion and that no truth exists. I had one good christian tell me "there can be only one truth but no one knows what it is". And that is an extremely dangerous thought.
Dios te bendiga y te guarde

CThomas
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:28 am

Re: Sedevacantism

Post by CThomas » Thu May 28, 2009 4:30 pm

Thanks again, Thomas. I guess the contrary sense I had about Catholic doctrine came from provisions of the Catholic Catechism such as the following:

""The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church [i.e., the Magisterium] alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. C.C.C., 85.

The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these." C.C.C., 88.

The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him. C.C.C., 100.

It's not immediately clear to me how the view you express about private interpretations of scripture or other Church documents is reconcilable with these sorts of pronouncement.

Again, regards,

CThomas

User avatar
thomas
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:51 am
Location: Panama

Re: Sedevacantism

Post by thomas » Fri May 29, 2009 7:38 am

First you have to understand what dogma is. It's the equivalent of the Statement of Faith in a protestant church. It covers such things as the Trinity , Baptism , sacrements , etc. It does not and cannot cover things in which there is no evidence in the Bible or the Bible is unclear. There are some things that cannot be defined.

A good examlpe is escatology which is open to speculation as long as it does'nt violate dogma , i,e. it is Amillenial but can be anything from apocalyptic to partial preterist , but it cannot be premill.

And before you bring up pergatory or Marian theology , any Catholic will show it's Biblical basis. A matter of interpretation.

The other thing not "written in stone" are those things dealing with practice , rituals , relics , processions , veneration , rosary , stations of the cross , and all those thing you are most likely to see Catholics doing.

On the other hand morals are non negotiable. Advocacy of abotion will get you nailed.
Dios te bendiga y te guarde

CThomas
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:28 am

Re: Sedevacantism

Post by CThomas » Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:41 pm

Hmm. Not sure I entirely follow your latest response as an answer to the question of private interpretation and its application or non-application to sedevacantism, but I appreciate the exchange.

Best regards.

CThomas

Post Reply

Return to “Roman Catholicism”