Reflection on Sedevacantism and Conclave of 1990 (quora)

I H. H. Pope Michael on Lent 2015 · II Five Years Ago · III Pray for a Pope · IV Reflection on Sedevacantism and Conclave of 1990 (quora) · V How Many are Currently Claiming Papacy or Claimed to be Popes?

Q

Are sedevacantists Catholic?

Anthony Zarrella

Lifelong Catholic and avid student of theology

Written Wed

No.

At least, definitely not with a “Big-C”.

The Catholic Church is, by definition, the Church led by the holder of the Petrine See (i.e., the Pope), and Jesus’s promises to Peter and the Apostles guarantee that the papal succession cannot fail.

In the early days following Vatican II, I could see a reasonable argument for “sedes” being Catholic still. (They call themselves “sedes” when I talk to them - it’s not an insulting term.) They could say, “This papal election was invalid, so the Cardinals need to do it over.” I wouldn’t agree with their premise, but I wouldn’t have said it fundamentally disqualified them from being Catholic.

But now, as one sede told me himself, there are no Cardinals left who were appointed by a “valid” Pope (in the sede perspective, I mean), and no bishops left who were ordained with the approval of a “valid” Pope. This would mean that the papacy is not only vacant, but cannot be filled, because there’s no one left to choose a new Pope.

It would also mean that Jesus, Who promised that “the gates of Hell [would] not prevail against” His Church, has allowed two whole generations of Catholics to be without any valid Pope.

So, in essence, any modern sedevacantist is asserting that the line of Peter has failed - which means that the Church has failed. It’s possible to believe that - but only if you believe that the Catholic Church in the line of Peter never was the Church to which Jesus gave His promise.

And that’s fundamentally incompatible with calling oneself “Catholic”.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“But now, as one sede told me himself, there are no Cardinals left who were appointed by a “valid” Pope (in the sede perspective, I mean), and no bishops left who were ordained with the approval of a “valid” Pope. This would mean that the papacy is not only vacant, but cannot be filled, because there’s no one left to choose a new Pope.”

Your canonic premiss is flawed.

If all cardinals are apostates, that leaves the bishops next.

If all bishops consecrated with approval by an undisputed valid Pope refuse or are even suspect of apostasy (I would not go that far, refusal is enough, if non-papacy is clear), it is for next layer to take a turn.

That would be bishops consecrated in a resistance - or … there was a layman in 1990 (four years after Assisi) who had an idea which such bishops did not go along with until c. 2003 or 2004. The result being a series of conclaves electing Alexander IX, if you prefer him over Pope Michael.

Anthony Zarrella

“That would be bishops consecrated in a resistance - or … there was a layman in 1990 (four years after Assisi) who had an idea which such bishops did not go along with until c. 2003 or 2004. The result being a series of conclaves electing Alexander IX, if you prefer him over Pope Michael.”

I would argue that, as in the days of the heresiarchs of old, a bishop who is validly consecrated is nonetheless an invalid papal elector if he is illicitly consecrated.

I take as my precedent the decision of the First Council of Nicaea regarding Meletius of Lycopolis and the clergy ordained by him (in fact, at that time, some of them weren’t even regarded as valid ordinations, much less licit). The decision did not specifically have to do with papal elections, but it established the principle that an illicit bishop is to have no authority in the Church unless that authority be confirmed by a licit prelate.

To make more of an argument from first principles, in a quasi-Thomist sense, no one may confer that which he himself lacks. So, it is then axiomatic that a bishop who does not possess canonical legitimacy or liceity cannot confer canonical legitimacy or liceity upon a putative Pope.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

However, a bishop consecrated in resistance is not necessarily illicitly consecrated.

[They would be if the resistance were an unnecessary and de facto rebellious act.]

“So, it is then axiomatic that a bishop who does not possess canonical legitimacy or liceity cannot confer canonical legitimacy or liceity upon a putative Pope.”

David Bawden was fully aware of this point.

It is not the conclave which CONFERS legitimacy on the Pope it elects. It ONLY designates the person on whom GOD confers it.

Let’s say we had been talking about the Roman Emperor, whom the Pope is crowning and on whom the Pope is conferring legitimate secular authority.

It is the Pope, not the seven princes elector who confer the Imperial dignity on the Roman Emperor.

Precisely so, it is also the Pope who confers episcopal dignity of jurisdiction on a bishop of Paris even back in the times when the bishop of Paris was designated whether it be by a “local conclave” (older type of episcopal designation) or even by the King of France.

It is accidental that more lately the Pope is BOTH designating the bishop AND conferring authority on him. Essentially, these two things are not the same function. Or, in a democracy : the people do not confer authority on the president, nor do “electors” as the US system has it. The voting people and the electors are just designating who shall receive authority from God (receiving it formally from the Pope being somewhat out of date, but actually also from God via the Pope’s approval, if the president in question is ruling over baptised faithful). So also, the conclave needs not have an authority to confer on the Pope, the cardinals are only designating him so God can confer His authority on the Pope.

Note, btw, that Pope Michael considers the Sedes properly speaking as heretical. He thinks the days are over in which one could have been right in waiting for cardinals to take a step and so on.

This does not mean he disapproves of their recent asking for roraries to be said for impetrating from God a Pope.

Update, the above was posted on his wall, he responded.

Dixit David Bawden / Pope Michael:

If Francis is Pope, we should go hand in hand to the Novus Ordo singing Kumbaya. The various other positions are problematic. The SSPX both branches are waiting for the Pope to convert. However, if he must convert, then that means he is not a Catholic. The sedeprivationists are waiting for the same thing, but deny he has authority until he converts. The sedevatancists, hold that there is no Pope, but with one exception have take no steps to end the vacancy.

He linked to:

Pray for a Pope: Join the Rosary Crusade to get a true Pope back on the Chair of St. Peter
Sedevacantists of the world, let us unite in praying the Holy Rosary of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary to beg Almighty God to grant us once more a true Pope!
http://www.prayforapope.com/