Renowned canonists Wernz and Vidal tell us that a pope loses his office by dying, resigning, going mad or by lapsing into open heresy or schism – and give their understanding of the "doubtful pope."
There's a distinction and strong objection we sedevacantists have struggled to properly grasp
and that has caused us to not thoroughly and directly and sufficiently address the objection made by notable SSPX authorities as regards heresy and loss of office.
It's the important distinction between the real order and the legal order.
And this should illustrate the point:
"If the pope dies and nobody knows about it, does he retain office until someone finds him and issues a death certificate?"
Response:
1. In reality, he's not pope.
2. In the legal order, the office of the papacy is still not vacant until that fact of death has been legally established. Whatever the requirements in law are, or presumptions accepted by law, must be followed.
3. Cry out all you want that you are certain that the pope is dead, you CANNOT OBLIGE the entire Catholic world to cease mentioning his name in the Canon of the Mass and other prayers until his death is legally established.
4. Cry out all you want that you are certain that the pope is dead, you cannot accuse anyone of sin for merely refusing to acknowledge your testimony that the pope is dead. Every priest LICITLY mentions the pope's name at Mass until the pope's death is formally established.
5. If you are certain of his death, you are probably OBLIGED to act according to that certitude. I say "probably" because I'm not certain how the rules in Moral Theology on acting according to one's properly formed conscience apply here.
=======
Substitute a dead pope above for an "UNDECLARED manifest formal heretic" and the same conclusions apply.
1. In reality, the undeclared formal heretic is not pope IF AND ONLY IF it is true that a manifestly heretical pope ipso facto loses office. I say "IF" because there's no definitive judgment of the Church on this, YET. I, like many, personally believes this most certainly the correct OPINION.
2. In the legal order, the office of the papacy is still not vacant UNTIL AT LEAST a declaratory sentence.
3. Cry out all you want that you are certain that the pope is a manifest heretic, you cannot oblige the entire Catholic world to cease mentioning his name in the Canon of the Mass and other prayers until the pertinacity of his heresy and the attendant consequences are LEGALLY established and consequently bind all Catholics to act accordinly.
4. Cry out all you want that you are certain that the pope is a manifest heretic, you cannot accuse anyone of sin for merely refusing to acknowledge your conclusion that the pope is a manifest heretic, for they can rightly or wrongly argue extenuating circumstances that remove presumption of pertinacity, and also PERSONALLY, rightly or wrongly, come to the conclusion that he's no formal heretic. Every priest licitly mentions the pope's name at Mass UNTIL the pope's manifest heresy and loss of office is formally legally established.
5. If you are certain of his manifest heresy, you are propably OBLIGED to act according to that certitude. I say "probably" because I'm not certain how the rules in Moral Theology on acting according to one's properly formed conscience apply here.
=======
This is the SSPX's best objection and it is an excellent one that should not be answered by rehashing arguments based on answers to questions that HAVE NOT YET BEEN definitively settled by the Church. Even though the answers are MOST PROBABLE, they are still not obligatory.
All of this is common sense, when subjectivism is replaced with the objective lens.
I think a lot of this message is assuming things that we don't believe. Going through:
"2. In the legal order, the office of the papacy is still not vacant until that fact of death has been legally established. Whatever the requirements in law are, or presumptions accepted by law, must be followed."
What do you think are the legal requirements for declaration of death? Is there a canon for this? In any case, notoriety of fact establish notoriety, which is a legal concept. Notoriety of law also establishes notoriety, but it's not the only way.
" 3. Cry out all you want that you are certain that the pope is dead, you CANNOT OBLIGE the entire Catholic world to cease mentioning his name in the Canon of the Mass and other prayers until his death is legally established.”
We don’t try to oblige them.
“4. Cry out all you want that you are certain that the pope is dead, you cannot accuse anyone of sin for merely refusing to acknowledge your testimony that the pope is dead.”
We agree.
“Every priest LICITLY mentions the pope's name at Mass until the pope's death is formally established.”
We agree.
“5. If you are certain of his death, you are probably OBLIGED to act according to that certitude. I say "probably" because I'm not certain how the rules in Moral Theology on acting according to one's properly formed conscience apply here.”
Sure.
“2. In the legal order, the office of the papacy is still not vacant UNTIL AT LEAST a declaratory sentence.”
False.
“3. Cry out all you want that you are certain that the pope is a manifest heretic, you cannot oblige the entire Catholic world to cease mentioning his name in the Canon of the Mass and other prayers until the pertinacity of his heresy and the attendant consequences are LEGALLY established and consequently bind all Catholics to act accordinly.”
Yes.
“4. Cry out all you want that you are certain that the pope is a manifest heretic, you cannot accuse anyone of sin for merely refusing to acknowledge your conclusion that the pope is a manifest heretic, for they can rightly or wrongly argue extenuating circumstances that remove presumption of pertinacity, and also PERSONALLY, rightly or wrongly, come to the conclusion that he's no formal heretic. Every priest licitly mentions the pope's name at Mass UNTIL the pope's manifest heresy and loss of office is formally legally established.”
I don't really think your objections are against sedevacantism (except n. 2). They are against certain strands of sedevacantism that seeks to compel everybody to go to their own Mass centres.
People like John Lane have been making the same points for decades.
Actually, my objections are primarily against your position precisely manifested by your denial of my no. 2 in both scenarios.
I strongly argue:
1. It's inconsistent to argue that the office of the papacy has been legally established to be vacant while at the same time saying Catholics are at liberty to not recognise the legal fact.
2. It's unfair to argue loss of office due to undeclared formal heresy IS CERTAIN when the modality of this loss has truly not been settled by the Church, even though one OPINION is more common, weightier and MOST PROBABLY the correct one.
3. That means if there's no principle in law by which the office of the papacy MUST be considered as vacant, then Catholics act correctly by acknowledging the post-Vatican II papacies while resisting their errors. Sedevacantism is extreme in this scenario.
I agree that it is insufficiently established to bind others, etc.
But I am arguing against this idea that he remains pope “for us” until there has been some legal declaration, and that no legal effects happen until that point.
A legal effect has taken place: he is not Pope. A declaration is impossible unless he is already not Pope.
"But I am arguing against this idea that he remains pope “for us” until there has been some legal declaration, and that no legal effects happen until that point."
You must acknowledge that that's one OPINION, and there are SEVERAL theologians who expressly teach the contrary.
Until a judgement by the Church on the matter, it will remain an opinion, even though, the most probable opinion. Since automatic loss of office due to undeclared manifest heresy still remains an opinion, the SSPX and others licitly hold to the contrary less probably opinion.
Again, this whole "opinion" thing is accepting the paradigm set out by MHTS as if it is the last word.
On the contrary, my "opinion" is that the vacancy - not necessarily caused by loss of office, which is a different issue and only one application of more certain principles- is a theological conclusion and certain. However, I recognise that others don't see it that way and that the Church doesn't obliged them to either. As a result, the bogey of opinionism is shown to lack a key distinction. It's not my "opinion" that the see is vacant, in the sense that MHTS tries to suggest.
As for the implications for the SSPX, I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here. I agree with what you say. Do you think I don't?
Anyway, I can't carry this on indefinitely. Eventually I'm going to need to halt this exchange.
To be fair and objective, I think there's a serious problem with saying:
...
1. The office of the papacy has been legally established to be vacant
...
... BUT
...
2. ALL CATHOLICS ARE NOT OBLIGED to observe it as vacant.
...
Once it's legally established, whether by a positive act or a presumption recognised by law, it becomes OBLIGATORY to observe and ILLICIT AND OBJECTIVELY SINFUL to ignore.
...
Why can't a priest TODAY LICITLY say Mass "una cum Pio (duodecimo) papa nostro"?
You are sufficiently well-versed with Theological Sciences and are able to explore purely speculative and hypothetical situations to reveal the solid principles that apply.
...
Please:
...
1. Can a priest TODAY LICITLY say Mass "una cum Pio (duodecimo) papa nostro" or is he OBLIGED to not mention Pius XII? Why?
...
2. If he actually believes (culpably or inculpably) that God must have preserved the life of Pope Pius XII in order to not let the Church be overrun by modernists, is he excused from OBJECTIVELY SINNING each time he says Mass in 2024 "una cum Pio (duodecimo) papa nostro"?
=======
This is a test to reveal the principles on which obligations and sin are founded in the matter of recognising a non-pope.
There's a distinction and strong objection we sedevacantists have struggled to properly grasp
and that has caused us to not thoroughly and directly and sufficiently address the objection made by notable SSPX authorities as regards heresy and loss of office.
It's the important distinction between the real order and the legal order.
And this should illustrate the point:
"If the pope dies and nobody knows about it, does he retain office until someone finds him and issues a death certificate?"
Response:
1. In reality, he's not pope.
2. In the legal order, the office of the papacy is still not vacant until that fact of death has been legally established. Whatever the requirements in law are, or presumptions accepted by law, must be followed.
3. Cry out all you want that you are certain that the pope is dead, you CANNOT OBLIGE the entire Catholic world to cease mentioning his name in the Canon of the Mass and other prayers until his death is legally established.
4. Cry out all you want that you are certain that the pope is dead, you cannot accuse anyone of sin for merely refusing to acknowledge your testimony that the pope is dead. Every priest LICITLY mentions the pope's name at Mass until the pope's death is formally established.
5. If you are certain of his death, you are probably OBLIGED to act according to that certitude. I say "probably" because I'm not certain how the rules in Moral Theology on acting according to one's properly formed conscience apply here.
=======
Substitute a dead pope above for an "UNDECLARED manifest formal heretic" and the same conclusions apply.
1. In reality, the undeclared formal heretic is not pope IF AND ONLY IF it is true that a manifestly heretical pope ipso facto loses office. I say "IF" because there's no definitive judgment of the Church on this, YET. I, like many, personally believes this most certainly the correct OPINION.
2. In the legal order, the office of the papacy is still not vacant UNTIL AT LEAST a declaratory sentence.
3. Cry out all you want that you are certain that the pope is a manifest heretic, you cannot oblige the entire Catholic world to cease mentioning his name in the Canon of the Mass and other prayers until the pertinacity of his heresy and the attendant consequences are LEGALLY established and consequently bind all Catholics to act accordinly.
4. Cry out all you want that you are certain that the pope is a manifest heretic, you cannot accuse anyone of sin for merely refusing to acknowledge your conclusion that the pope is a manifest heretic, for they can rightly or wrongly argue extenuating circumstances that remove presumption of pertinacity, and also PERSONALLY, rightly or wrongly, come to the conclusion that he's no formal heretic. Every priest licitly mentions the pope's name at Mass UNTIL the pope's manifest heresy and loss of office is formally legally established.
5. If you are certain of his manifest heresy, you are propably OBLIGED to act according to that certitude. I say "probably" because I'm not certain how the rules in Moral Theology on acting according to one's properly formed conscience apply here.
=======
This is the SSPX's best objection and it is an excellent one that should not be answered by rehashing arguments based on answers to questions that HAVE NOT YET BEEN definitively settled by the Church. Even though the answers are MOST PROBABLE, they are still not obligatory.
All of this is common sense, when subjectivism is replaced with the objective lens.
I think a lot of this message is assuming things that we don't believe. Going through:
"2. In the legal order, the office of the papacy is still not vacant until that fact of death has been legally established. Whatever the requirements in law are, or presumptions accepted by law, must be followed."
What do you think are the legal requirements for declaration of death? Is there a canon for this? In any case, notoriety of fact establish notoriety, which is a legal concept. Notoriety of law also establishes notoriety, but it's not the only way.
" 3. Cry out all you want that you are certain that the pope is dead, you CANNOT OBLIGE the entire Catholic world to cease mentioning his name in the Canon of the Mass and other prayers until his death is legally established.”
We don’t try to oblige them.
“4. Cry out all you want that you are certain that the pope is dead, you cannot accuse anyone of sin for merely refusing to acknowledge your testimony that the pope is dead.”
We agree.
“Every priest LICITLY mentions the pope's name at Mass until the pope's death is formally established.”
We agree.
“5. If you are certain of his death, you are probably OBLIGED to act according to that certitude. I say "probably" because I'm not certain how the rules in Moral Theology on acting according to one's properly formed conscience apply here.”
Sure.
“2. In the legal order, the office of the papacy is still not vacant UNTIL AT LEAST a declaratory sentence.”
False.
“3. Cry out all you want that you are certain that the pope is a manifest heretic, you cannot oblige the entire Catholic world to cease mentioning his name in the Canon of the Mass and other prayers until the pertinacity of his heresy and the attendant consequences are LEGALLY established and consequently bind all Catholics to act accordinly.”
Yes.
“4. Cry out all you want that you are certain that the pope is a manifest heretic, you cannot accuse anyone of sin for merely refusing to acknowledge your conclusion that the pope is a manifest heretic, for they can rightly or wrongly argue extenuating circumstances that remove presumption of pertinacity, and also PERSONALLY, rightly or wrongly, come to the conclusion that he's no formal heretic. Every priest licitly mentions the pope's name at Mass UNTIL the pope's manifest heresy and loss of office is formally legally established.”
Yes, sure.
I don't really think your objections are against sedevacantism (except n. 2). They are against certain strands of sedevacantism that seeks to compel everybody to go to their own Mass centres.
People like John Lane have been making the same points for decades.
Actually, my objections are primarily against your position precisely manifested by your denial of my no. 2 in both scenarios.
I strongly argue:
1. It's inconsistent to argue that the office of the papacy has been legally established to be vacant while at the same time saying Catholics are at liberty to not recognise the legal fact.
2. It's unfair to argue loss of office due to undeclared formal heresy IS CERTAIN when the modality of this loss has truly not been settled by the Church, even though one OPINION is more common, weightier and MOST PROBABLY the correct one.
3. That means if there's no principle in law by which the office of the papacy MUST be considered as vacant, then Catholics act correctly by acknowledging the post-Vatican II papacies while resisting their errors. Sedevacantism is extreme in this scenario.
OK, we are at cross purposes here.
I agree that it is insufficiently established to bind others, etc.
But I am arguing against this idea that he remains pope “for us” until there has been some legal declaration, and that no legal effects happen until that point.
A legal effect has taken place: he is not Pope. A declaration is impossible unless he is already not Pope.
"But I am arguing against this idea that he remains pope “for us” until there has been some legal declaration, and that no legal effects happen until that point."
You must acknowledge that that's one OPINION, and there are SEVERAL theologians who expressly teach the contrary.
Until a judgement by the Church on the matter, it will remain an opinion, even though, the most probable opinion. Since automatic loss of office due to undeclared manifest heresy still remains an opinion, the SSPX and others licitly hold to the contrary less probably opinion.
Again, this whole "opinion" thing is accepting the paradigm set out by MHTS as if it is the last word.
On the contrary, my "opinion" is that the vacancy - not necessarily caused by loss of office, which is a different issue and only one application of more certain principles- is a theological conclusion and certain. However, I recognise that others don't see it that way and that the Church doesn't obliged them to either. As a result, the bogey of opinionism is shown to lack a key distinction. It's not my "opinion" that the see is vacant, in the sense that MHTS tries to suggest.
As for the implications for the SSPX, I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here. I agree with what you say. Do you think I don't?
Anyway, I can't carry this on indefinitely. Eventually I'm going to need to halt this exchange.
To be fair and objective, I think there's a serious problem with saying:
...
1. The office of the papacy has been legally established to be vacant
...
... BUT
...
2. ALL CATHOLICS ARE NOT OBLIGED to observe it as vacant.
...
Once it's legally established, whether by a positive act or a presumption recognised by law, it becomes OBLIGATORY to observe and ILLICIT AND OBJECTIVELY SINFUL to ignore.
...
Why can't a priest TODAY LICITLY say Mass "una cum Pio (duodecimo) papa nostro"?
A lot depends on the work we think "legally" is doing here.
You are sufficiently well-versed with Theological Sciences and are able to explore purely speculative and hypothetical situations to reveal the solid principles that apply.
...
Please:
...
1. Can a priest TODAY LICITLY say Mass "una cum Pio (duodecimo) papa nostro" or is he OBLIGED to not mention Pius XII? Why?
...
2. If he actually believes (culpably or inculpably) that God must have preserved the life of Pope Pius XII in order to not let the Church be overrun by modernists, is he excused from OBJECTIVELY SINNING each time he says Mass in 2024 "una cum Pio (duodecimo) papa nostro"?
=======
This is a test to reveal the principles on which obligations and sin are founded in the matter of recognising a non-pope.