Discussion on Sedevacantism / Orthopapism, not quite the same thing

Why I'm Not A Sedevacantist
I Miss Christendom | 9 mars 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_J0C33tXaw

1:10 There is another way of not being sedevacantist. Orthopapism.

Is the real Pope Michael II or Peter III? Does he reside in the Philippines or in Spain?

3:34 opopop ... the anathemas are latae setentiae excommunications for later people falling into them.

If someone in the mid 16th C. held that God did not die for all men, he was excommnicated by the council.

If he then went on to still believe that after Trent defined otherwise, he was already excommunicated latae sententiae, by the sentence of Trent, before he could be (possibly) excommunicated in person before his bishop in a ferenda sententia. Modern canonists have been too critical of the latae sententiae model. It does not deprive someone of due process, as they claim. If someone is presumed to have fallen under a latae sententiae punishment and he disputes it, like "such and such a circumstance means I wasn't doing what the law is talking about" the sentence can be retroactively as well as onward lifted after hearing his case.

A famous example of this possibility in action lately is, a) sententia declarativa in 1988 saying that Lefebvre, Castro-Mayer, Williamson, Galareta, Tissier de Malleray and Fellay had incurred a latae sententiae punishment, to wit excommunication, for the consecrations in Écône, both those conferring and those receiving, b) the lifting of the excommunications in 2007. Whereupon Mgr Williamson was personally excommunicated (if truly so) for holocaust denial.

So, yes, the anathemas very much do function as latae sententiae excommunications on "successors" should they presume to change the faith.

Take a look at CCC § 283 and later § 390 with its context. Confer Session V on Original Sin, where the first three canons definitely presume there was a literal first man referred to as Adam, and that original sin was incurred by his personal choice.

Like Cum Ex Apostolatus, there really was an intention of setting a booby trap for apostates in office.

3:56 1) The Catholic Church never said that a man has no right to have his own understanding of the Bible on any point.

Trent Session IV sets certain limits for the own understanding: * it must not countervene what the Church hath held and holds (that Church for which it is to judge = pronounce binding sentence on the Bible) * nor the unanimous sentence of the Church Fathers

Relying on ones own understanding is not an extra first situation which is forbidden, it's a dangerous situation which can function as a precursor to the two forbidden ones (it may be understood they are only forbidden with this prequel, so that for instance someone materially contradicting the magisterium or Church Fathers in the false belief brought on by someone else that he was following them would not be guilty, but this does still not mean that "proprio ingenio innisi" is a parallel rather than a precursor to wresting Scriptures to an idiosyncratic sense contrary to above limits).

2) The Bible is a collection of texts written in languages other than Latin in a pre-Christian culture.

We cannot presume all of the Bible is utterly obscure, but we must presume lots less obscurity for Church documents written in Latin in a Christian culture.

3) There has never been a formal ban for anyone, even a layman, to read the Church documents on his own. There have been restrictions for laymen to read Scripture on their own, but never Church documents.

7:01 Noted. If my position denies perpetual successors, it makes me excommunicated latae sententiae.

This can be the case with Sedevacantists who hold a vacancy has been going on for now soon 74 years.

It does not damn the position that Pope Michael II was elected after a vacancy of nearly one year. It most probably does not damn the position that Pope Michael I was elected after a vacancy of 32 years, after Pius XII, but on top of that, this need not even be considered, he was open to his election being within one year of a valid but sinful Siri papacy.

One reason for sedevacantists to not accept new elections, one mentioned recently by I think Bishop Pivarunas, was "what if the see isn't vacant but secretly held by a successor of Siri" ... a successor of Siri made in a secret election consenting from start to remain Pope in secret only would not be a Pope. Siri could have been validly Pope if:

* he was validly elected and accepted (white smoke) * under duress and without inner assent abdicated (black smoke, followed by "false" white smoke) * took up the sinful position of "being in the catacombs" by denying he was Pope, by pretending to be cardinal under false Popes.

Note, in such a case, his papacy would have begun validly, since he would have not had this sinful intention when taking up papacy.

But a successor taking up papacy with this sinful intention would ipso facto invalidate his papacy. The Church is not a secret society. Popes and cardinals may act as secret agents on other issues (like saving Jews in WW-II, they did), but the job description for a Pope or Cardinal is definitely not to be a secret agent operating visibly under the umbrella of someone else's false papacy.

A sedevacancy being prolonged as long as 40 years (1950 — 1990 = 40, if Pius XII lost papacy with Humanae Generis; 1958 — 1990 < 40) was considered during the discussions of the council, and not condemned.

A sedevacancy of about 1 year, if Siri was validly but sinfully Pope, very certainly does not amount to a denial of perpetual successors.

7:56 Yeah, I'm very much not impressed by Peter Dimond's rebuttal.

The situation in my view can be compared to the Western Schism if there are three papal claimants, Michael II, Peter III and "Francis" and one of them is validly Pope.

Also, while Pope Michael I to my best knowledge made no formal ruling that Novus Ordo rites are invalid, he did make one validating:

* Duarte Costa lineage * some Old Catholic lineage * Thuc lineage * Lefebvre lineage.

He can be presumed to have not disputed Eastern rite lineage, even after Vatican II. Everyone is presumed to not dispute Eastern Orthodox lineage as valid, though illicit.

But Sedevacantists proper, who hold the sedevacancy is still ongoing, have less reason to compare to the Western Schism.

8:11 So, Jeremiah 33:17 speaks in a context starting with Jesus Christ. There is still no one lacking, since Christ is still both King and Priest.

Given that His Blessed Mother is cousin of St. Elisabeth, He's a Cohen as well as a Halakhmi / Ben David.

8:45 Thank you.

You have just noted why the parallel you made between Bible and Church documents does not hold, at least not like you think it does.

10:25 Conclavists don't claim it was broken.

I'd like to have the specifics on Charles Coulombe's pretense that the council counted several times past popes were in heresy.

Honorius may have believed that Jesus had one will, but he never said so, he seems to say "it's an insoluble problem, don't bother" which is bad enough.

This cannot be compared to issuing CCC with paragraphs 283 and 390.

That it's "not up for individual discernment" is a very moot point. If remaining Catholic while accepting "Francis" or previously "Benedict" or "John Paul II" as Pope has become a matter of individual discernment rather than of straight off obedience to straight off orders, then there is no valid reason why precisely "such and such is a heretic, therefore not a Pope" should not also be at the disposal of at least initially, individual discernment.

Under Michael II, I don't hold it by individual discernment, I hold it under my Pope.

10:32 Er, no.

1) Infallibility does not mean impeccability
2) It's not certain that Cephas in Galatians 2 actually is Peter
3) If it was, he took the rebuke of his inferior
4) he was not in fact excommunicating uncircumcised Christians, he was not using magisterial means, just social means of expressing an unwarranted disparagement.

12:31 As you mention Thuc, whose lines Pope Michael I defined as valid, the "question on his mental state" by precisely opponents of the consecrations is no valid reason for doubt.

1) It is interested. Biassed. Strategic.
2) It is based on a Soviet style concept of psychiatry, where believing "religious delusions" can be a reason for questioning the mental state.
3) Thuc (at least then and there) didn't and the ones questioning did hold the position "the real episcopacy is in danger" as a kind of delusion.

We are a very far cry from when a doctor took the pulse of Bernadette Soubirous and noted she was not in a state of excitation, therefore it was not madness.

The opposition to Sedevacantism with Orthopapism taking on this kind of Soviet overtones is obviously yet another reason to reject the validity of the "in Vatican" recent "papacies" ... and the Catholicity of those in communion with them.

13:02 Note that he only said sth about withholding intention about Clemente Dominguez, and you do not mention when he said it, even that could have been under some kind of duress, after making up with Vatican II holders, as part of the conditions of reconciliation, or because he was ashamed of the man when watching his carreere. As an ex-Palmarian, I can see reasons for such shame. Denying one had the intention could have been a way to safe face, as the Asiatics say.

Either way, we cannot extrapolate from that that he randomly withheld intention for several other people.

14:18 There would be another doubt on the Lefebvre lineage, as to bishops.

The question about mental status for Thuc and for Lefebvre has some similarities.

New releases of the footage about the consecrations leave out parts of the "apostolic mandate" passage.

It's most credible, and was the position finally of Michael I, that Lefebvre used "I hear the Popes of the past plead with me" was a figure of speech, or referring to how his thought process dramatised in an auditory visualisation, but I think the wording was such that some psychiatry friendly people could argue he based his apostolic mandate on a hallucination. A highly misused concept, putting lots of sane people into mental care, especially when dealing with "auditory hallucinations" ... (I think some in France might abuse it also, not by pretending the visualisation was a hallucination rather than a fantasy experienced as such, but if the one experiencing it rather than dismiss it because it is in the imagination inseatd judges it is from God, an abuse which I hope is not covered by DSMH-V, but I am not sure).

My point is not that this is not a very devious way of opposing the FSSPX, it is very devious, my point is that Thuc probably faced the same kind of deviousness.

By the way, I think in the Thuc case, there was no sister who made comments about his mental status at the near exact time.

15:53 What you say about exorcisms is indeed a sign the bishop has some kind of jurisdiction.

Keep in mind, I'm talking from the perspective of an adherent of Pope Michael II, who already adhered to Michael I.

Now, when it comes to marrying, taking the Church as witness, if you have no direct access to a conclavist priest, involves formally sending the Vatican in Exile proof you were married with words of the Catholic rite before two witnesses, usually after civil marriage.

However, if you involve local loosely speaking Catholic clergy, Pope Michael actually prefers you use one "as witness" who is in communion with his bishop, as he is trying to act from ordinary jurisdiction, ordinary faculties. This would certainly explain how he would have also accorded ordinaries (even if presumed or suspected to be ontologically laymen, though he never decided that formally) the jurisdiction over exorcisms.

It's not a fool proof sign that they have orders, though Michael II could define they have. Even if invalidity was one of the problems the then layman David Bawden presumed as making a threat to the Church before deciding his convocation to an election, it could be that the real invalidity of papacies involve matters of doctrine even of real bishop.

But the exorcism part immediately says more about their jurisdiction.

16:15 Wait, not just episcopal jurisdiction, but also holy water and more especially eucharist?

What you just said after that would perhaps be the strongest argument against John Paul II being a heretic.

How credible is it a person who was in the exterior a heretic was not so before God and was therefore a saint that can be invoked?

In fact, my mother, before I left her, had prayed the rosary with me. She had some understanding of the Catholic faith and intended to convert. Yet, she remained in a civil marriage (or perhaps made it a Lutheran one) which the Catholic Church did not recognise, and she was buried by a Lutheran clergyman. Nevertheless, she seems to have prayed for me. I prefer saying "ora pro nobis" over "requiescat in pace" — you are free to do otherwise, but if so, try ora pro nobis first, and if that fails, pray a rosary for her repose!

It can be added, in Sweden she was under some extreme duress.