Sedevacantism

Thanks Pro! Onto the rebuttals. I'll also throw a few words against sedevacantism as well. To recap Pro's argument, he states that: - The Second Vatican Council contradicts the decrees in the Council of Florence and the First Vatican Council - That is Heretical - All Popes since 1958 have endorsed the Second Vatican Council prior to their election - All Popes since 1958 are heretical - All Popes since 1958 are not real Popes as per the decree at the Council of Trent. Which is a valid line of reasoning if true. But there are a number of points I want to bring up that make this argument hard to uphold. Who is to judge whether a Pope is Heretical or not? I think this is the main reason to reject sedevacantism. According to the Code Canon Law of 1917 (the operative law for sedevacantists), the authority lies with the Pope and only the Pope as the absolute authority to deal with Cardinals concerning doctrinal or disciplinary matters.“It belongs entirely to the Roman Pontiff to judge...Cardinal Fathers.”-Canon 1557 par.1-2“In the causes of which canon 1556, 1557 treat, the incompetence of any other judge is absolute.” -Canon 1558 [1] So when the Council of Trent rightly states that some “Cardinal...prior to his elevation as Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy.”, the authority to determine this lies with the Pope and only the Pope, as per Canon Law. The Council of Trent tells us what to do when a Cardinal is a heretic. The Canon Law of 1917 tells us who is to determine it. And it isn't the lay person, not even Cardinals: it is under the jurisdiction of the Pope that determines whether some cardinal is heretical. Let's go back to the Sedevacantist's claim, that Cardinal Roncalli (Pope John XXIII) was invalidly elected in 1958 as he was a heretic. According to Canon Law, only Pope Pius XII could determine this under absolute authority. But he didn't! And the same is true of all other Popes after 1958: none of them, while Cardinals, were deemed heretic by the Pope at the time. So, we have no choice but to render each Pope's election was valid. We now have a de facto case against Con's argument. Ecclesiastical Law i) All Elections are Valid It seems that there are at least two decrees that are issued by popes, that deny the validity of the argument. Pope St. Pius X stated:“None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment” [2] And Pope Pius XII:“None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff” [3] From these two decrees, it seems that sedevacancism can be rejected on these grounds, for any heretic can still, upon the Papal Conclave, be elected Pope, for "None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication... be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff". It is also important to differentiate between 'active' and 'passive'. In this sense, 'active' refers to giving votes for some Cardinal and 'passive' refers to the receiving of votes from other Cardinals. So it holds that that even heretics can be subject to the receiving of votes at the Papal Conclave and elected Pope, contrary to Pro's argument. ii) Changes Now it may be objected that these decrees constitute change to divine law and thus is in itself heretic. But it seems that at least some decrees that are changeable over time by the Church. [4] Now this isn't to simply put all Canon Laws into doubt and remove all binding authority from them. Most are immutable. But there are some, like women wearing veils at mass, that are changeable. The task then is to determine whether the mentioned decrees from the said councils are among those immutable laws. This gives the objector to Sedevacantism a de jure reason to reject it: while it may be preferable not to strip the decrees of authority, it isn't a necessary doctrine for the Catholic to hold to. Moreover, if one takes a view of divine superintendence over the church (see below) then it doesn't seem change is an issue, for it is all justified by God's actions. So we have a de jure case to reject Pro's argument. We have sufficient reason to think that the Popes are i) not heretical and ii) validly Popes. Indefectability Finally, I see there to be some Theological difficulties in affirming that no Popes after 1958 are valid. I think both me and Pro are on the same page when it comes to God being perfect, and that God guides the Catholic Church in all it's operation [5][6]. It then seems that if one questions the authenticity of the Pope, you are in turn questioning the adequacy of God's actions, for God is responsible for superintending the Church and preventing corruption. If you assert that corruption is present (from sedevacantism) then you are doubting God's adequacy and power, which is in itself sinful and heretic. Conclusion I have given both a de facto and a de jure case against Sedevacantism. We should therefore render it heretical in itself. Sources [1] http://www.jgray.org... [2] Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904 [3] Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945 [4] http://www.catholic.com... [5] Matthew 16:18 [6] http://www.vatican.va...