Is the seat really vacant?
This blog entry will be dealing specifically with the "anti-Vaticanum II" sedevacantists. Basically, I will try to refute this type of sedevacantism with a single argument: an argument based on logic.
Before we proceed to my refutation, let us first recall in our minds the claims of these sedevacantists. The most popular and central would be:
1) Vatican II is anti-Catholic.
2) All conciliar and post-conciliar (Vatican II) popes are heretical "anti-popes".
3) The "Novus Ordo" (ordinary form of the Roman Rite) is heretical.
These are the three basic points of these "traditionalist sedevacantists". It is perhaps relevant to some to also note that these three points are shared - in varying degrees - by many "traditional Catholics" (normally by those who are very close to formal heresy and schism).
So how will I now proceed? I could refute all three false claims - however I will not. There is sufficient orthodox Catholic information on the issue available online. I will however follow through the consequences that arise from the aforementioned sedevacantist points and thereby demonstrate the absurdity of such position.
If ponts 1, 2 & 3 are all true, then we have to say that every single Catholic who is in communion with the Popes connected to Vatican II (Pope John XXIII - Pope Benedict XVI) is by necessity also a heretic.
Sedevacantists surely are familiar with Pope Paul IV's papal bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio.
Here is even a link to it from a sedevacantist site: http://www.romancatholicism.org/cum-ex-apostolatus-officio.htm
What is important about it? §2 and §5 (§5 i) tell us that the Church in communion with the Popes connected to Vatican II - according to sedevacantist thinking - cannot be the Catholic Church as it would be heretical. It would be some sort of an "anti-Church".
So far, so good!
Now the problem starts. According to Vatican I (an Ecumenical Council not rejected by this type of sedevacantists) the office of the Papacy is to be permanent:
Session 4, Chapter 2:
1. That which our Lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain forever, by Christ's authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time.
http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#Contents
So since the 3 points of these sedevacantists has lead to the necessary consequence that the Church in communion with the Magisterium is no longer the Church since it would be "heretical", the sedevacantists would now be the "real Catholics", but have not a pope.
The question then is: what on earth are they waiting for? If they already claim that (true) Catholics are heretics and that they are the real thing, then why do they not comply with the decrees of Vatican I - which they claim to follow - and provide for a pope? Certainly the Cardinals in Rome (in communion with Pope Benedict XVI) would also be deemed "heretical" and thus cannot be the ones to elect the "real pope".
Moreoever, why have they not already elected a "real pope" when the "widespread departure from the faith" (i.e. Vatican II - according to their ideology) began? Why even wait? This waiting is in itself an illogical act.
47 years have already passed since Vatican II was opened. Until now they speak of "sede vacante": the vacant seat (chair of Peter). Are they waiting for "heretics" to elect a pope they could like?
Clearly, their hesitation is a demonstration of a lack of faith in their own position. It seems plausible to me that the creators of this mistaken ideology have simply focused on an "anti-campaign" without being able to create a positive cause/basis for their own position. If this position defines itself through a negative and is existentially dependent on being that negative that opposes Vatican II, then it is a lost cause, a heresy. It bears the same attitude of the first sinner: that of rebellion (non serviam).
As I tell our protestant brethren: being ANTI is not enough.
When an idea is intrinsically flawed, it will reveal itself as an erroneous view when logically and consequently thought through - as in this case.
I pray that these separated brethren shake off the burden of this heresy and come back to the unity of the chair of Peter.
"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface VIII)
This blog entry will be dealing specifically with the "anti-Vaticanum II" sedevacantists. Basically, I will try to refute this type of sedevacantism with a single argument: an argument based on logic.
Before we proceed to my refutation, let us first recall in our minds the claims of these sedevacantists. The most popular and central would be:
1) Vatican II is anti-Catholic.
2) All conciliar and post-conciliar (Vatican II) popes are heretical "anti-popes".
3) The "Novus Ordo" (ordinary form of the Roman Rite) is heretical.
These are the three basic points of these "traditionalist sedevacantists". It is perhaps relevant to some to also note that these three points are shared - in varying degrees - by many "traditional Catholics" (normally by those who are very close to formal heresy and schism).
So how will I now proceed? I could refute all three false claims - however I will not. There is sufficient orthodox Catholic information on the issue available online. I will however follow through the consequences that arise from the aforementioned sedevacantist points and thereby demonstrate the absurdity of such position.
If ponts 1, 2 & 3 are all true, then we have to say that every single Catholic who is in communion with the Popes connected to Vatican II (Pope John XXIII - Pope Benedict XVI) is by necessity also a heretic.
Sedevacantists surely are familiar with Pope Paul IV's papal bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio.
Here is even a link to it from a sedevacantist site: http://www.romancatholicism.org/cum-ex-apostolatus-officio.htm
What is important about it? §2 and §5 (§5 i) tell us that the Church in communion with the Popes connected to Vatican II - according to sedevacantist thinking - cannot be the Catholic Church as it would be heretical. It would be some sort of an "anti-Church".
So far, so good!
Now the problem starts. According to Vatican I (an Ecumenical Council not rejected by this type of sedevacantists) the office of the Papacy is to be permanent:
Session 4, Chapter 2:
1. That which our Lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain forever, by Christ's authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time.
http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#Contents
So since the 3 points of these sedevacantists has lead to the necessary consequence that the Church in communion with the Magisterium is no longer the Church since it would be "heretical", the sedevacantists would now be the "real Catholics", but have not a pope.
The question then is: what on earth are they waiting for? If they already claim that (true) Catholics are heretics and that they are the real thing, then why do they not comply with the decrees of Vatican I - which they claim to follow - and provide for a pope? Certainly the Cardinals in Rome (in communion with Pope Benedict XVI) would also be deemed "heretical" and thus cannot be the ones to elect the "real pope".
Moreoever, why have they not already elected a "real pope" when the "widespread departure from the faith" (i.e. Vatican II - according to their ideology) began? Why even wait? This waiting is in itself an illogical act.
47 years have already passed since Vatican II was opened. Until now they speak of "sede vacante": the vacant seat (chair of Peter). Are they waiting for "heretics" to elect a pope they could like?
Clearly, their hesitation is a demonstration of a lack of faith in their own position. It seems plausible to me that the creators of this mistaken ideology have simply focused on an "anti-campaign" without being able to create a positive cause/basis for their own position. If this position defines itself through a negative and is existentially dependent on being that negative that opposes Vatican II, then it is a lost cause, a heresy. It bears the same attitude of the first sinner: that of rebellion (non serviam).
As I tell our protestant brethren: being ANTI is not enough.
When an idea is intrinsically flawed, it will reveal itself as an erroneous view when logically and consequently thought through - as in this case.
I pray that these separated brethren shake off the burden of this heresy and come back to the unity of the chair of Peter.
"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface VIII)
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen