Sedeprivationism?

[hyperdulia again]

Someone explain sedeprivationism to me.

[kateri05]

please?

[Aloysius]

HYPERR!

the status of the conciliar popes, according to sedeprivationism, is that they are "papa materialiter non formaliter", popes materially but not formally.

the seat is materially filled, but they do not fully acheive the status of "pope", they are mearly "potential popes" because, through heresy (the theory goes) they are unable to acheive the form of pope, though they are materially filling the position. if they recanted of their heresies, they would ipso facto become real popes. but whilst they are in heresy, they merely hold the position, so that it can be filled by someone who is not a heretic eventually.

I don't know, if I ever found that a heretic had become pope, Michel Louis Guérard des Lauriers thesis might seem elegant to me. I've not been convinced that the conciliar popes were heretics, though, but if a pope were ever elected who was a heretic, it would seem to make sense that he materially held the throne by did not substantially assume the formal position of pope.

[kateri05]

isn't the problem with this theory, tho, WHO gets to decide that a particular pope is in heresy? because if anyone can decide, then why should i ever follow the pope?

it just sounds like a slippery slope to martin luther to me

[adt6247]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1396609' date='Oct 2 2007, 03:42 PM']isn't the problem with this theory, tho, WHO gets to decide that a particular pope is in heresy? because if anyone can decide, then why should i ever follow the pope?

it just sounds like a slippery slope to martin luther to me [/quote]
Interesting theory, I don't know if I subscribe to its logic or not.

Well, we would probably only know on some obvious basis -- like if we had a pope that suddenly allowed female priests, contraception, abortion, denied the divinity of Christ, etc. Any faithful Catholic should be able to know these things. It's on the more subtle ideas that one should give the benefit of the doubt to Rome as to whether a pope/bishop is in heresy.

[adt6247]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1396600' date='Oct 2 2007, 03:35 PM']HYPERR!

the status of the conciliar popes, according to sedeprivationism, is that they are "papa materialiter non formaliter", popes materially but not formally.

the seat is materially filled, but they do not fully acheive the status of "pope", they are mearly "potential popes" because, through heresy (the theory goes) they are unable to acheive the form of pope, though they are materially filling the position. if they recanted of their heresies, they would ipso facto become real popes. but whilst they are in heresy, they merely hold the position, so that it can be filled by someone who is not a heretic eventually.

I don't know, if I ever found that a heretic had become pope, Michel Louis Guérard des Lauriers thesis might seem elegant to me. I've not been convinced that the conciliar popes were heretics, though, but if a pope were ever elected who was a heretic, it would seem to make sense that he materially held the throne by did not substantially assume the formal position of pope.[/quote]
Would this hold true for a material heretic or just a formal heretic, if this theory is true? Could a pope, in theory, hold a heresy privately, but by the power of the Holy Spirit, never be allowed to proclaim heresy?

[kateri05]

[quote]like if we had a pope that suddenly allowed female priests, contraception, abortion, denied the divinity of Christ, etc. Any faithful Catholic should be able to know these things. I[/quote]

but see, a Pope would never DO that. its impossible. thats the point of the infallibility charism, that the Holy Spirit would truly never let that happen. so creating a "what if it happens" theory to somehow mean that pope wasn't really a pope seems.... logically impossible.

either the Holy Spirit is in charge or He's not, this sounds like trying to eat cake and have it too.


which is also impossible. i know. i've tried

[quote]Could a pope, in theory, hold a heresy privately, but by the power of the Holy Spirit, never be allowed to proclaim heresy?[/quote]

i'm curious to know the answer to this as well, because it seems theoretically possible in the letter of the law for the charism of infallibility, but seems to deny its spirit. thus, my curiosity

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1396563' date='Oct 2 2007, 12:54 PM']Someone explain sedeprivationism to me.[/quote]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedeprivationism"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedeprivationism[/url]

Originally presented by Fr. Guérard des Lauriers in what is known as the "Cassiciacum Thesis." Not a bad theory, coming from my perspective and I have a lot of respect for some of the priests/bishops who hold this position. But I do have some problems with it. Of course (as far as my very ignorant understanding of the concept can tell), whether or not the thesis is right or wrong, the more time goes by the less this thesis can continue to apply and really doesn't provide any better solid long-term answers than sedevacantism does.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1396621' date='Oct 2 2007, 01:50 PM']Would this hold true for a material heretic or just a formal heretic, if this theory is true? Could a pope, in theory, hold a heresy privately, but by the power of the Holy Spirit, never be allowed to proclaim heresy?[/quote]

In order to lose office (assuming hypothetically that its possible) a pope would need to be a formal heretic, just like any one else. Only formal heretics lose membership in the Church. A pope could never, ever proclaim heresy infallibly and have it be valid. I personally believe that he can proclaim heresy and prove himself a heretic in the public fora, but he can't do so validly through his charism of infallibility.

[Aloysius]

well, there is no one competant to judge the pope, except maybe the whole college of patriarchs and bishops + the sensus fidelium & sensus catholicum combined.

my what-if scenario really leaves you with two options: either the Catholic Church is wrong and thus, likely, Christianity itself is wrong (though it would be a time to re-investigate the Eastern Orthodox's positions), or there is something which explains the privation of the seat.

if your personal sensus catholicum tells you the pope is a heretic, I think the elegant thing to do is to assume the pope materially holds the seat but is not fully and substantially pope. but so long as it remains your personal sensus catholicum, you must recognize that Christianity is not a personal religion but a communal one, and excercise obedience to the one who holds the seat materially, since he is the closest thing to a pope that the Church has, he has all the material judicial authority of the pope which ought to be obeyed in anything except sin.

it would be if the sensus fidelium (and that's not the popular sense, it is the sense of those who are faithful, so it would not include anyone who was not a Catholic in good standing) clearly resisted him as a heretic, and the college of bishops (and that'd also have to be the faithful bishops, not the ones who were heretics themselves) resisted him, it might be a more openly tenable position; though he would still materially hold the seat and thus a degree of judicial obedience would still be required.

there is a whole slew of things that a pope may do which are not guarded by infallibility which could be damaging to the Church. I do not see the election process as necessarily infallible, nothing has ever said that the cardinals pick the pope infallibly, and thus I could see a heretic receiving the election and ascending to the throne. I believe that such a person would hold the position materially so long as he remained a heretic, and that the Holy Spirit would prevent him from binding the whole Church to believe an error (though I am unsure if sedeprivationism allows for the infallibility in that regard of the one who materially holds the seat; I would assume it would be an infallibility of silence, that the Holy Spirit would not allow one who was not fully pope to bind the whole Church on any beleif anyway, and could see one attempting to argue this of the Conciliar popes who did not issue many strong-handed statements)

[photosynthesis]

What's the difference between sedevacantism, sedeprivationism and sedeimpeditism?

[Aloysius]

a sedeimpedist believes that someone else was elected pope before John XIII, but that he was impeded from taking office even though he accepted his election. The most common claim of this would be Giuseppe Cardinal Siri, saying that he reigned as the supressed/impeded Pope Gregory XVII from 1958 until 1989 (his death). I believe there might be some out there who hold that he appointed some type of successor, or else they became sedevacantists after his death. Or perhaps, and this is what I might believe if I believed this thesis (which I do not), they might say that once Siri was dead the Cardinals could again validly elect a pope (though, would they hold cardinals appointed by an anti-pope as legitimate cardinals? I do not know) and thus Benedict XVI would've been validly elected. I'm really unfamiliar with what these "sirianists" believe happened after their pope's death.

a sedeprivationist believes that the seat was materially but not formally filled by the Conciliar Popes, as explained above.

a sedevacantist believes that the seat was completed vacated after Pius XII and that there has been no pope, material or otherwise, since; only anti-popes

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='photosynthesis' post='1396647' date='Oct 2 2007, 02:23 PM']What's the difference between sedevacantism, sedeprivationism and sedeimpeditism?[/quote]

[u]Sedevacantism[/u]: There is no one currently in possession of the chair of Peter. This happens every time a pope dies, until a new one is elected. Certain groups maintain that this is the case today, since around Vatican II. The Seat is vacant.

[u]Sedeprivationism[/u]: A man (in this case referring to the post-Vatican II leaders) is "potentially" a pope, but not in actuality. Their consent to become pope was defective. If such a man were to recant from his errors he would immediately become, in actuality, the pope.

[u]Sedeimpeditism[/u]: The belief that an anti-pope has taken over Rome (as has occurred many times), that such a man "impeded" upon the throne of Peter. There can be, in reality a real pope somewhere outside of Rome, having been forced from his throne. Both Sedevacantists and Sede-impedists today agree that anti-popes rule in Rome. Where Sedevacantists differ from Sede-impeditists is the debate over whether or not there is, or was, a true pope since Vatican II. Many sede-privationists, in whose camp I find myself becoming closer and closer to everyday, would argue that there has been a pope all this time since Vatican II, who was forced from Rome, at least up until the 1990's. They refer to Cardinal Giuseppi Siri. There is much debate over this and not a lot of conclusive evidence either way (at least none that will be made public yet). But I find myself most closely aligned with this philosophy lately.

Edited October 2, 2007 by goldenchild17

[jeffpugh]

So, if I'm reading this right, you're saying Peter's chair is currently vacant?

[Aloysius]

only one here that I know for sure believes that is goldenchild, but he's not really saying that, he's holding his tongue quite nobly as per phorum rules against such debates. but I believe he is leaning towards the idea that Grergory XVII reigned after Pius XII, and that Gregory XVII set up a clandestined cardinalate who may have elected another pope in exile by now or at least may plan to do so one day.

I tell you, it's one of the most fascinating and romantic theories... to join up with it would be like becoming Tom Hanks in the DaVinci code, that's its main allure I think, that's what keeps the theory surviving mostly, it'd be really quite exciting to be part of a Church with a pope in exile like that, with few people knowing the real truth, trying to get the real truth out. National Treasure, the DaVinci Code, the Cardinal Siri Theory, they all survive for the same reason.

Personally, I'm simply answering a question. I give my full allegiance to the legitimate Successor of St. Peter, Pope Benedict XVI, I gave my full allegience to his predecessor of Happy Memory, Pope John Paul II, and I recognize their predecessors who reigned prior to my birth from Pope John Paul I to Pope Paul VI to Pope John XXIII... who knows where Hyper's position stands, he hasn't been here in a couple years. he's flirted with the boundaries of traditionalism in the past sometimes, if I recall correctly, but this may be simply a curiousity.

other than that, no, none of us believe these theories, we're just describing them/answering the question.