The Death Knell of Sedevacantism:
A Challenge To All Sedevacantists...
I believe there is an argument that destroys the entire modern sedevacantist thesis to pieces. In fact, I believe it makes the entire position, IN THEORY, to be impossible to hold. I emailed this challenge/dilemma to three different sedevacantists before posting it on my website to see how they dealt with it. Upon viewing their reactions to the dilemma I posed, I am now posting this on my website for all to read. I challenge any sedevacantist to convincingly answer this challenge, and I look forward to the responses I get. I do believe the challenge is unanswerable, and thus makes the sedevacantist position impossible to hold on to, no matter how convincing its arguments may seem.
I welcome all sedevacantists to email me with their responses, and below I will post one attempted answer and show clearly why it did not solve the dilemma at all.
EMAIL JOE MOREAUX with comments or objections to this article
The Challenge for Sedevacantists....
Most sedevacantists have no problem saying John XXIII was Pope, although they are certain Paul VI was not a pope. I am unaware of any sedevacantist who argues that the Chair has been empty only since John Paul II. The reason none of them want to argue that position is because that would mean they would be bound to Vatican Council II, and the Novus Ordo Missae, both of which came under the papacy of Paul VI. So the general consensus of most sedevacantists is that either Pope Pius XII or Pope John XXIII was the last true pope, but that Cardinal Montini (future Paul VI) definitely was not. Now, some argue Paul VI lost his papacy somewhere during his pontificate, but most realize that this a very weak position given the fact that most canonists/theologians said it was near to impossible for a validly elected Pope to lost his papacy through heresy, especially since Christ told St. Peter, "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail..." (Luke 22:32). To many sedevacantists, this establishes papal indestructibility, meaning once a man is elected to the papacy, he will be specially guided by the Holy Ghost to not fall into heresy. So to be consistent, sedevacantists generally argue that Paul VI was never a true pope to begin with, not even for one second. So the question that must be asked is, if Paul VI was not the head of the Catholic Church, then what was he head of? The answer given usually is that Paul VI was founded a NEW church that was distinct from the Catholic Church. This new church was founded by modernists, heretics, liberals, and apostates, with Paul VI was the head. Now, the logical question to ask would be, What year was this New Church founded? The answer given is usually somewhere between 1958-1970, somewhere around that time, this new church (referred to as the "Vatican II Church" or the "Novus Ordo Church") was founded. And sedevacantists fully believe it was an actual, distinct church, completely separate from the Catholic Church founded by Christ. So the next logical question to ask is, By what year can it be demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that we clearly have a New Church formed? In other words, by what year can the members of this New Church no longer plead ignorance to have joining this New Church and leaving behind their Catholicism through heresy and apostasy? Sedevacantists differ on this point, but the general consensus given, and the one held by sedevacantist apologist John Daly who is considered an authority of sorts within sedevacantism (he made his comments at the 2002 Sedevacantist Conference, available through www.sedevacantist.com), is that by 1965, most of the cardinals and bishops were definitely not Catholics anymore and had joined this New Church, and that by 1970 definitely we clearly had a New Church, and that the hierarchy that joined it were no longer a Catholic hierarchy. Now here comes the challenge... since the entire known and visible hierarchy of the Catholic Church joined this New Church in 1970, this would mean that for a certain period of time, no actual or visible hierarchy existed anywhere in the entire world. But this is an impossibility, for it not only contradicts Tradition and the clear promises of Christ to always be with His Church, but it also contradicts infallible Church teaching that the Church will always have pastors and shepherds in the faith until the end of time (Vatican Council I infallibly taught in 1870 that the Church would always possess a living, teaching Magisterium). Thus, it makes Christ a liar, and it means the gates of hell would have prevailed against the Church. Because every single known bishop or cardinal joined this New Church and thus ceases to be hold Catholic authority, according to the sedevacantist position. In order for sedevacantism to be true, it would have to offer evidence of at least ONE bishop or cardinal who objected to joining this new Church in order to remain Catholic. The reason this would vindicate sedevacantism is because it would technically mean that to an extent, albeit a very very extreme one, Vatican Council I would not have been contradicted since there would at least be one member holding valid authority in the Church in order to continue succession and the continuing Magisterium. But since every single bishop and cardinal we know of went along with Paul VI, accepted Vatican Council II, accepted the Novus Ordo, and joined this New Church through no ignorance on their part, thus losing their Catholic authority and jurisdiction, this would mean that Vatican Council I erred in its infallible teaching, thus making Christ a liar in Matthew 16:15-19, and Matthew 28:19-20.
Thus, sedevacantism falls flat to the ground. Even in theory, the position can not hold up, because in the process it turns Christ into a liar. No matter how convincing one's arguments may be, if it makes Christ a failure and a liar, then the argument's are fallacious ipso facto. The only way sedevacantism could convincingly prove its case, and even then it would be a stretch, but the only way it could be done is if it could prove at least ONE single bishop or cardinal who refused to join the New Church prior to at least 1970. And this, sedevacantists can no do. Thus, according to their thesis, the Church existed for a period of time with no actual or visible or authoritative hierarchy anywhere in the entire world.
And so... the death knell of sedevacantism. It can not be true, even in principle. And I challenge sedevacantists to prove otherwise.
The Death Knell of Sedevacantism: A Challenge To All Sedevacantists... By Joseph Moreaux. Original Source: http://www.kingdomofchrist.net/deathsede.html
| |
PUBLISHED on the Internet: ___________.
|
|
|
Joseph Moreaux's "Death Knell for Sedevacantism"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P U R P O S E
Written with the purpose of educating people in matters concerning the Catholic Resistance to the Modernist Apostasy, and based on the principles elucidated by the Church, that the truth is never afraid, and that the Church is never afraid of the Truth, and on the principles elucidated by Frs. Rumble & Carty and by Fulton Sheen in his essay, "The Art of Controversy". — Benedicamus Deus, Lúcio.
|
Fair Use Notice
This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human, religious, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Lúcio Mascarenhas
|