"an increasing cognitive dissonance in my experience considering my previous years of studying and apostolate in apologetics."
I think that's a very common thing. My guess is Mr. Gonzaga has been used to trotting out hyperpapalist apologetics arguments, which seems to make a lot of anti-Protestant argumentation neat and easy and conclusive. So he resolves his cognitive dissonance by rejecting the complexity of reality and clinging to the hyperpapalist shortcut, since the latter is less demanding of revision of his established ideological-apologetical position and its go-to arguments. So in short, hyperpapalism can't be given up for ideological reasons, since the Catholic apologist has come to crucially depend on it for defeating his opponents. In reality, the Catholic's "but the pope says..." is often turning out to be just as problematic as the Protestant's "but the Bible says..."
Great article Dr K, as a recent convert drawn to the tradition and stable doctrine of the Church, I have found the war against her own traditions rather baffling I must say...
Vatican II is only half the question. The other half is who possesses the authority to remedy it. Without a demonstrable source of apostolic mission, every proposed solution simply assumes the very thing that must first be established.
I think this article does grave injustice to the Holy See. Regarding the continued existence of the SSPX, it says: «Now, if you say to over a million Catholics who are rightly attached to the traditions of the Church, “You need to become extinct...». This and the following paragraphs operate under the assumption that what the Holy See has asked the SSPX is to disband, which is deeply untrue. An agreement akin to the Eclessia Dei groups has always been on the table. From then on, what the apologist of the SSPX must defend is not the decision between disbanding and consecrations, but between an agreement and consecrations. Yet this article pretends as if no offers for regularization have been given. And if these offers where unreasonable, this would need to be specifically argued for.
More so, it does not address the fact that an offer for dialogue was given on the condition that the consecrations be postponed, and Don Davide refused this offer. The responsibility for the break in communications sadly lies on the Society. And the idea that the postponing was an unreasonable condition is not defensible. A true state of necessity must be certain and immediate, and there's never was an immediate necessity to make the consecrations the 1st of July, without even trying to negotiate before.
Dr. K. proposes as the solution to this problem that Leo XIV grants them the mandate with no conditions. I find this absurd. Why should the Pope, after his offer for dialogue has been rejected, grant them a mandate which the say they don't need, to make consecrations which they've said they'll do anyways, so that a schism may be prevented which they say is no schism? Such a caving to blackmail would diminish the authority of the Holy See and inspire future rebellions, both left and right. Plus, I find that this proposal goes against the anti-hyperpapalist line of thinking Dr. K. has defended. It amounts to saying that the Pope can and should grant permission for consecrations intended to continue an apostolate which usurps jurisdiction of hundreds of residential Bishops, and that these Bishops should have no say on the matter.
The news which Dr. K. gives at the end surely are scandalous. But I don't see how that justifies the consecrations. And when he says that the Church is in a state of crisis, I don't see that the essential matter is answered: if we're in such a state of crisis that the 1st July consecrations are justified. It seems that a clear answer to this question, which is *the* question, is avoided through the article.
Finally, about the Profession of Faith. If the Roman Church and the SSPX can agree on doctrine is a matter which should naturally have been discussed in the dialogue which Don Davide has refused. This is rather directed, as Dr. K. himself points out, to put the Church of Rome publicly under a test of faith. I don't think it's of good faith to refuse real doctrinal dialogue and then to make these public tests, as if the Holy See could be implied to deny some dogma in that Profession if they punish the canonical crimes which the Society has vowed to commit.
This analysis is not remotely fair to the Apostolic See. I find myself much more in agreement with this Laurence Gonzaga than with Dr. K. I pray that schism may be prevented, or at least repaired and recanted in the future.
Thanks for sharing your viewpoint. It should be clear that this post was by no means intended as an all-out defense of the SSPX or an all-out critique of the current Vatican response. It was really more of a bulletin board of thoughts connected with my recent interviews, and to that extent, rather piecemeal. You won't find here the full argument you're looking for, as that wasn't my intention, and the post was already quite lengthy.
We should not forget a few things, however.
1. Benedict XVI put a deal on the table that Bp. Fellay was ready to sign, and then some underlings of Benedict added (unbeknownst to him) extra conditions that the Society was not prepared to accept. This was unjust to both the pope and the Society, but it's typical backstabbing Vatican politics. Sorry to say it, it's just true.
2. Pagliarani asked for a meeting with Leo quite a while ago. One feels almost certain that Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict, or Francis would have granted that request. It was not unreasonable. The refusal to meet is squarely on the pope's shoulders. Note that once the July 1st consecrations were announced, suddenly the Vatican scrambled to set up a meeting (albeit not with the pope).
Anyway, there's a lot that's been written on these topics. I talk about some of it in an earliier post:
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I didn't know that detail about the Ratzinger-Fellay negotiations. The history of the Rome-Êcone negotiations is lenghty and Rocky, and I do not pretend that everything has been well done by Vatican officials. But I do think that from the Protocol of 5 May onwards (from which we will never regret enough that Mons. Lefebvre backed out) the Vatican offers have been reasonable enough that they could not be legitimately refused, even if they haven't necessarily answered to every traditionalist demand.
About the negotiations between the SSPX and Leo XIV, I think it would have been better for the Pope to meet with Don Davide, at least so that it may be testified that everything has been tried to prevent the schism. But I fear that what has prevented it is the initial refusal for dialogue from Don Davide, which I think has made the impression on Rome that they're not good faith interlocutors. If they think that dialogue and doctrinal agreement are impossible, the meeting with the Pope lacks a raison d'être.
I don't say nor think that this was an all-out defense of the SSPX, but I do find it one-sided, at least insofar it didn't address the Roman offers nor the fact that it was Don Davide who refused the postponing and dialogue that Rome proposed.
"I fear that what has prevented it is the initial refusal for dialogue from Don Davide, which I think has made the impression on Rome that they're not good faith interlocutors."
You raise some interesting arguments, but they suffer from this defect: they fail to deal with particulars of fact. Here for instance you say "I fear..."; but why did Davide actually refuse dialogue? That's a crucial question of fact.
Also: What does 'good faith interlocutor' actually mean? Is Davide in fact such a one? Is there any evidence that Leo and his people in Rome are in fact such? For you, the frank and public Profession of Faith is apparently a sign of being a 'bad faith interlocutor.' To me, your attitude just seems perverse, the opposite of the truth about what 'good faith interlocution (dialogue)' consists in.
"If they think that dialogue and doctrinal agreement are impossible, the meeting with the Pope lacks a raison d'être." -- It seems to me that they likely do think that, and that they have good reason for thinking that. Thus the papal party is at least as shy as the Society to meet, in particular to have a genuinely doctrinal encounter, as the Society insists, which would force the modernist-papal party to openly reveal their doctrinal hand. Addressing dubia in regard to articles of faith should not be an occasion for embarrassed protracted demurrals on the part of the pope (too busy blessing chunks of ice, or whatever?!), should it?
This is likely too much to ask, but I believe many of us would benefit if a person of your stature would critique the “Pints with Aquinas” debate between Jeff Cassman and Peter Dimond on sedevacantism. Matt Fradd and many in the comments section were shocked at the results, particularly during the cross examinations, which are bookmarked in the description of this otherwise lengthy debate.
As I've explained in a variety of places, I cannot accept the very first premises of sedevacantism, so to go into detail is not necessary. It's like the philosophy of Descartes or Kant: once you see that they have made a mistake on the first page, you don't really need to refute them laboriously.
Does the first premise concern indefectability? That problem seems to cut both ways. If one says that sedevacantism admits a defection of the Church, another can argue (I think equally) that by recognizing the validity of a heretical Pope, a Pope who explicitly upends the authoritative teaching of his predecessors, we are confirming the defection. Even accounting for hyperpapalism, it's hard to avoid extending this problem to the Cardinal electors and the Bishops who obey him and follow his example, despite the obvious contradictions, some of which could have been foreseen before his election. While many faithful fear being called schismatic or sedevacantist, for me it feels even more fearful to say, even tacitly, that: "I give my allegiance and financial support to an unrepentant hierarchy which persecutes faithful Catholics, endorses Christ-denying religions, makes secret deals with Christ- persecuting communist China, protects 160 Bishops credibly accused of sexually abusing minors, punishes whistleblowers who report these predators, robs donations and closes churches to pay for its crimes, grants communion to powerful and rabidly pro-abortion politicians (Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi), rejects or undermines Church teaching on sexual morality, steals from the poor by filching Peter's Pence to pay for luxury condominiums, and essentially lives and teaches lies." And that's the short list. It's a terrible thing indeed if being in Communion with "the Church" requires being in communion with this. If a Pope supports these things, is he in communion with Christ and Peter? If he is not, how can his authority be recognized? Are we somehow preserving an "indefectable" Church with our fealty? Are we pointing people to the "light of the world, a city on a hill that cannot be hidden", or to a burning dung heap where children are sacrificed to false Gods (Gehenna)? I finally quit this Church when I realized I could not in good faith try to evangelize anyone into it. This Church may be the one I deserve, but it's not the Church innocent children deserve, and it makes a mockery of the great martyrs who died to spread and preserve the faith.
"a Pope who explicitly upends the authoritative teaching of his predecessors, we are confirming the defection."
I would suggest what you actually need here is a pope who formally and authoritatively teaches in contradiction to the irreformable authoritative teaching of his predecessors. Then the question is: whatcha got? (Moral and political corruption are a fact of Church history and simply do not make a case for defection of the Church.)
With due respect, I think your typical (so far as I've seen them) dismissals of Descartes and Kant are simplistic and inadequate, so how that bodes for the sedevacantism question... That said, for the sake of clarity and distinctness (if that's all right!), could you briefly say what you're referring to as "the very first premises of sedevacantism"? I'm sure I'm not alone in not being sure what you are referring to here.
I’m thinking now that the first premise being objected to concerns whether a Pope who is a notorious heretic automatically loses his office. This question fell within the scope of the linked debate and the consensus was that Cassman got, as one seemingly non-partisan commentator put it, “murdered”. If someone has better arguments they should debate the sedevacantist on these points. Because the current state of affairs is even more untenable than sedevacantism. If the Gospel isn’t being preached as handed down by the Scriptures and the Apostles, what is the point of having a Pope or Church. It should be that simple. And Paul said as much in Galatians 1:8.
But should we, or an angel from Heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed.!"
And how can a man Paul calls “accursed” be the legitimate successor of Peter.
I'm watching that debate, and so far I agree, Cassman is out of his depth. I'd certainly prefer to hear Kwasniewski's case. But my guess, from what I perhaps inaccurately recall him saying on the subject, is that he'd make some vague association to Cartesian epistemology and say that it just couldn't be the case that such a massively widespread error (in identifying the pope) would be allowed by God. (Which would seem to me a weak argument, since the same would just as well apply to the various other widespread fundamental errors that he acknowledges are endemic in the New Order Church.)
Interesting that Janet Smith has endorsed Chris Jackson's recent "Avoiding Babylon, Avoiding the Question." It looks like sedevacantism is becoming harder to casually dismiss and ignore...
"If the Gospel isn’t being preached as handed down by the Scriptures and the Apostles, what is the point of having a Pope or Church." -- To this point, I would suggest it's like saying, "what's the point of having evil and corrupt kings?" (as was normally the case in Judah and Israel). But isn't it obvious that the point of an office doesn't change as a result of office-holders performing their offices badly? Evil corrupt kings should be deposed; but David refuses to kill the maniac Saul, whom he continues to recognize as the Lord's anointed, and he certainly doesn't think there's no point of having a kingdom or a king, even though the reigning king is completely nuts.
I agree with you David (notwithstanding your odd fetish for defending Descartes, on whom I wrote my MA thesis and whose work I have studied deeply - he is indeed the father of modern philosophy in all its panoply of errors).
The office is not destroyed by bad officeholders, and its purpose does not cease because it is abused. Abusus non tollit usum.
The problem is the assumption of hyperpapalism as a frame of reference, whereby we think that the pope must always be an infallible oracle of God, whose commands must always be obeyed, etc. This is really a strange view historically and theologically. The pope's prerogative to define doctrine or settle disputes has never seriously been questioned, but extrapolating from that to handing down weekly laws from on high and dogmas by the day is a huge stretch.
Obviously there's a lot that can be and has been said on these points, but the notion that one can still be Catholic and yet believe that the Church on earth has been abandoned to the extent that there has been no successor of St. Peter for decades and there's not likely to be one for decades more (if ever) is a position that is impossible to square with, e.g., Vatican I's assurance that the Chair would be ever occupied. It would be far better at that point just to become Eastern Orthodox, since they have developed an ecclesiology that dispenses, for all intents and purposes, with the papacy.
I greatly appreciate you both for your indulgence and replies. I don't dispute that the Papal office continues. Yet I find convincing the many citations to Popes, Saints, Doctors of the Church and Canonists stating that notorious heretics immediately lose their office. And given the criteria for all Catholics regarding latae sententiae , is this surprising? (That's a genuine, not rhetorical, question).
In terms of harm to the Church, and even the Papacy itself, a seated heretic feels far worse than a vacant seat, since a Pope who contradicts the many authoritative teachings of his predecessors creates a terrible dilemma for laymen: to which Pope or Popes do we adhere? We can say "all of them", but only if heretical Popes are removed.
If, on the other hand, we must grit our teeth and accept a string of Popes intent on capsizing two millennia of consistent teaching, are we the Church any less abandoned by God? I would say we are equally abandoned and even punished, because the Church is given over to dishonest men who sow confusion regarding the truths needed for salvation.
(As to the Vatican I issue regarding perpetual succession, that is addressed to some degree in the opening statement, though nothing on this subject is fully satisfying)
Well the section of my own master's thesis wherein I expounded Descartes' place in the development of modern philosophy was singled out for praise by my examiners. But perhaps my philosophical views are merely fetishistic, not substantive? Perhaps, but it's hard to see on what (non-fetishistic!) grounds you are assuming the former.
It's true, abusus non tollit usum; but of course the particular question is about if and when abusus tollit officium.
The obvious rejoinder for the sedevacantist is that true papalism must avoid not only hyperpapalism, but also hypopapalism; and that if the papacy is reduced in practice to a non-authoritative status, then whether you admit it or not you have already effectively become ecclesiologically assimilated to something approximating EO. Of course there's much more to say on this, but in general it looks to me like perhaps what is needed is more substantive critical discussion of the precisely papal(!) development of apparently dogmatic(!) hyperpapalism, at least since Piux IX -- as exemplified by recent essays by Vigilius at Rorate Caeli.
"an increasing cognitive dissonance in my experience considering my previous years of studying and apostolate in apologetics."
I think that's a very common thing. My guess is Mr. Gonzaga has been used to trotting out hyperpapalist apologetics arguments, which seems to make a lot of anti-Protestant argumentation neat and easy and conclusive. So he resolves his cognitive dissonance by rejecting the complexity of reality and clinging to the hyperpapalist shortcut, since the latter is less demanding of revision of his established ideological-apologetical position and its go-to arguments. So in short, hyperpapalism can't be given up for ideological reasons, since the Catholic apologist has come to crucially depend on it for defeating his opponents. In reality, the Catholic's "but the pope says..." is often turning out to be just as problematic as the Protestant's "but the Bible says..."
Well said.
So much excellent content. I have to say that the Gallagher interview is one of the best of yours that I've seen.
Many thanks for the kind words!
Great article Dr K, as a recent convert drawn to the tradition and stable doctrine of the Church, I have found the war against her own traditions rather baffling I must say...
Most Holy Theotokos save us! What's 700-yrs between believers? 🌐🔔📿⏳🌴⛪🌙🌌☀️⚓🌊🏔️
https://substack.com/@robertcculwell/note/c-287307083?r=26w20k
Vatican II is only half the question. The other half is who possesses the authority to remedy it. Without a demonstrable source of apostolic mission, every proposed solution simply assumes the very thing that must first be established.
I think this article does grave injustice to the Holy See. Regarding the continued existence of the SSPX, it says: «Now, if you say to over a million Catholics who are rightly attached to the traditions of the Church, “You need to become extinct...». This and the following paragraphs operate under the assumption that what the Holy See has asked the SSPX is to disband, which is deeply untrue. An agreement akin to the Eclessia Dei groups has always been on the table. From then on, what the apologist of the SSPX must defend is not the decision between disbanding and consecrations, but between an agreement and consecrations. Yet this article pretends as if no offers for regularization have been given. And if these offers where unreasonable, this would need to be specifically argued for.
More so, it does not address the fact that an offer for dialogue was given on the condition that the consecrations be postponed, and Don Davide refused this offer. The responsibility for the break in communications sadly lies on the Society. And the idea that the postponing was an unreasonable condition is not defensible. A true state of necessity must be certain and immediate, and there's never was an immediate necessity to make the consecrations the 1st of July, without even trying to negotiate before.
Dr. K. proposes as the solution to this problem that Leo XIV grants them the mandate with no conditions. I find this absurd. Why should the Pope, after his offer for dialogue has been rejected, grant them a mandate which the say they don't need, to make consecrations which they've said they'll do anyways, so that a schism may be prevented which they say is no schism? Such a caving to blackmail would diminish the authority of the Holy See and inspire future rebellions, both left and right. Plus, I find that this proposal goes against the anti-hyperpapalist line of thinking Dr. K. has defended. It amounts to saying that the Pope can and should grant permission for consecrations intended to continue an apostolate which usurps jurisdiction of hundreds of residential Bishops, and that these Bishops should have no say on the matter.
The news which Dr. K. gives at the end surely are scandalous. But I don't see how that justifies the consecrations. And when he says that the Church is in a state of crisis, I don't see that the essential matter is answered: if we're in such a state of crisis that the 1st July consecrations are justified. It seems that a clear answer to this question, which is *the* question, is avoided through the article.
Finally, about the Profession of Faith. If the Roman Church and the SSPX can agree on doctrine is a matter which should naturally have been discussed in the dialogue which Don Davide has refused. This is rather directed, as Dr. K. himself points out, to put the Church of Rome publicly under a test of faith. I don't think it's of good faith to refuse real doctrinal dialogue and then to make these public tests, as if the Holy See could be implied to deny some dogma in that Profession if they punish the canonical crimes which the Society has vowed to commit.
This analysis is not remotely fair to the Apostolic See. I find myself much more in agreement with this Laurence Gonzaga than with Dr. K. I pray that schism may be prevented, or at least repaired and recanted in the future.
Thanks for sharing your viewpoint. It should be clear that this post was by no means intended as an all-out defense of the SSPX or an all-out critique of the current Vatican response. It was really more of a bulletin board of thoughts connected with my recent interviews, and to that extent, rather piecemeal. You won't find here the full argument you're looking for, as that wasn't my intention, and the post was already quite lengthy.
We should not forget a few things, however.
1. Benedict XVI put a deal on the table that Bp. Fellay was ready to sign, and then some underlings of Benedict added (unbeknownst to him) extra conditions that the Society was not prepared to accept. This was unjust to both the pope and the Society, but it's typical backstabbing Vatican politics. Sorry to say it, it's just true.
2. Pagliarani asked for a meeting with Leo quite a while ago. One feels almost certain that Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict, or Francis would have granted that request. It was not unreasonable. The refusal to meet is squarely on the pope's shoulders. Note that once the July 1st consecrations were announced, suddenly the Vatican scrambled to set up a meeting (albeit not with the pope).
Anyway, there's a lot that's been written on these topics. I talk about some of it in an earliier post:
https://www.traditionsanity.com/p/a-survey-of-the-best-writing-on-the
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I didn't know that detail about the Ratzinger-Fellay negotiations. The history of the Rome-Êcone negotiations is lenghty and Rocky, and I do not pretend that everything has been well done by Vatican officials. But I do think that from the Protocol of 5 May onwards (from which we will never regret enough that Mons. Lefebvre backed out) the Vatican offers have been reasonable enough that they could not be legitimately refused, even if they haven't necessarily answered to every traditionalist demand.
About the negotiations between the SSPX and Leo XIV, I think it would have been better for the Pope to meet with Don Davide, at least so that it may be testified that everything has been tried to prevent the schism. But I fear that what has prevented it is the initial refusal for dialogue from Don Davide, which I think has made the impression on Rome that they're not good faith interlocutors. If they think that dialogue and doctrinal agreement are impossible, the meeting with the Pope lacks a raison d'être.
I don't say nor think that this was an all-out defense of the SSPX, but I do find it one-sided, at least insofar it didn't address the Roman offers nor the fact that it was Don Davide who refused the postponing and dialogue that Rome proposed.
"I fear that what has prevented it is the initial refusal for dialogue from Don Davide, which I think has made the impression on Rome that they're not good faith interlocutors."
You raise some interesting arguments, but they suffer from this defect: they fail to deal with particulars of fact. Here for instance you say "I fear..."; but why did Davide actually refuse dialogue? That's a crucial question of fact.
Also: What does 'good faith interlocutor' actually mean? Is Davide in fact such a one? Is there any evidence that Leo and his people in Rome are in fact such? For you, the frank and public Profession of Faith is apparently a sign of being a 'bad faith interlocutor.' To me, your attitude just seems perverse, the opposite of the truth about what 'good faith interlocution (dialogue)' consists in.
"If they think that dialogue and doctrinal agreement are impossible, the meeting with the Pope lacks a raison d'être." -- It seems to me that they likely do think that, and that they have good reason for thinking that. Thus the papal party is at least as shy as the Society to meet, in particular to have a genuinely doctrinal encounter, as the Society insists, which would force the modernist-papal party to openly reveal their doctrinal hand. Addressing dubia in regard to articles of faith should not be an occasion for embarrassed protracted demurrals on the part of the pope (too busy blessing chunks of ice, or whatever?!), should it?
🌐🗝️🇻🇦⛪🪨 Holy Father papa Benedict XVI, Joseph Ratzinger in the World, please pray for us!
This is likely too much to ask, but I believe many of us would benefit if a person of your stature would critique the “Pints with Aquinas” debate between Jeff Cassman and Peter Dimond on sedevacantism. Matt Fradd and many in the comments section were shocked at the results, particularly during the cross examinations, which are bookmarked in the description of this otherwise lengthy debate.
https://www.youtube.com/live/tIauJB2_y1c?is=UDE32UsreUEnHsVG
As I've explained in a variety of places, I cannot accept the very first premises of sedevacantism, so to go into detail is not necessary. It's like the philosophy of Descartes or Kant: once you see that they have made a mistake on the first page, you don't really need to refute them laboriously.
Does the first premise concern indefectability? That problem seems to cut both ways. If one says that sedevacantism admits a defection of the Church, another can argue (I think equally) that by recognizing the validity of a heretical Pope, a Pope who explicitly upends the authoritative teaching of his predecessors, we are confirming the defection. Even accounting for hyperpapalism, it's hard to avoid extending this problem to the Cardinal electors and the Bishops who obey him and follow his example, despite the obvious contradictions, some of which could have been foreseen before his election. While many faithful fear being called schismatic or sedevacantist, for me it feels even more fearful to say, even tacitly, that: "I give my allegiance and financial support to an unrepentant hierarchy which persecutes faithful Catholics, endorses Christ-denying religions, makes secret deals with Christ- persecuting communist China, protects 160 Bishops credibly accused of sexually abusing minors, punishes whistleblowers who report these predators, robs donations and closes churches to pay for its crimes, grants communion to powerful and rabidly pro-abortion politicians (Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi), rejects or undermines Church teaching on sexual morality, steals from the poor by filching Peter's Pence to pay for luxury condominiums, and essentially lives and teaches lies." And that's the short list. It's a terrible thing indeed if being in Communion with "the Church" requires being in communion with this. If a Pope supports these things, is he in communion with Christ and Peter? If he is not, how can his authority be recognized? Are we somehow preserving an "indefectable" Church with our fealty? Are we pointing people to the "light of the world, a city on a hill that cannot be hidden", or to a burning dung heap where children are sacrificed to false Gods (Gehenna)? I finally quit this Church when I realized I could not in good faith try to evangelize anyone into it. This Church may be the one I deserve, but it's not the Church innocent children deserve, and it makes a mockery of the great martyrs who died to spread and preserve the faith.
"a Pope who explicitly upends the authoritative teaching of his predecessors, we are confirming the defection."
I would suggest what you actually need here is a pope who formally and authoritatively teaches in contradiction to the irreformable authoritative teaching of his predecessors. Then the question is: whatcha got? (Moral and political corruption are a fact of Church history and simply do not make a case for defection of the Church.)
Hopefully my recent reply to your original post addresses this better than my original comment.
With due respect, I think your typical (so far as I've seen them) dismissals of Descartes and Kant are simplistic and inadequate, so how that bodes for the sedevacantism question... That said, for the sake of clarity and distinctness (if that's all right!), could you briefly say what you're referring to as "the very first premises of sedevacantism"? I'm sure I'm not alone in not being sure what you are referring to here.
I’m thinking now that the first premise being objected to concerns whether a Pope who is a notorious heretic automatically loses his office. This question fell within the scope of the linked debate and the consensus was that Cassman got, as one seemingly non-partisan commentator put it, “murdered”. If someone has better arguments they should debate the sedevacantist on these points. Because the current state of affairs is even more untenable than sedevacantism. If the Gospel isn’t being preached as handed down by the Scriptures and the Apostles, what is the point of having a Pope or Church. It should be that simple. And Paul said as much in Galatians 1:8.
But should we, or an angel from Heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed.!"
And how can a man Paul calls “accursed” be the legitimate successor of Peter.
I'm watching that debate, and so far I agree, Cassman is out of his depth. I'd certainly prefer to hear Kwasniewski's case. But my guess, from what I perhaps inaccurately recall him saying on the subject, is that he'd make some vague association to Cartesian epistemology and say that it just couldn't be the case that such a massively widespread error (in identifying the pope) would be allowed by God. (Which would seem to me a weak argument, since the same would just as well apply to the various other widespread fundamental errors that he acknowledges are endemic in the New Order Church.)
Interesting that Janet Smith has endorsed Chris Jackson's recent "Avoiding Babylon, Avoiding the Question." It looks like sedevacantism is becoming harder to casually dismiss and ignore...
"If the Gospel isn’t being preached as handed down by the Scriptures and the Apostles, what is the point of having a Pope or Church." -- To this point, I would suggest it's like saying, "what's the point of having evil and corrupt kings?" (as was normally the case in Judah and Israel). But isn't it obvious that the point of an office doesn't change as a result of office-holders performing their offices badly? Evil corrupt kings should be deposed; but David refuses to kill the maniac Saul, whom he continues to recognize as the Lord's anointed, and he certainly doesn't think there's no point of having a kingdom or a king, even though the reigning king is completely nuts.
I agree with you David (notwithstanding your odd fetish for defending Descartes, on whom I wrote my MA thesis and whose work I have studied deeply - he is indeed the father of modern philosophy in all its panoply of errors).
The office is not destroyed by bad officeholders, and its purpose does not cease because it is abused. Abusus non tollit usum.
The problem is the assumption of hyperpapalism as a frame of reference, whereby we think that the pope must always be an infallible oracle of God, whose commands must always be obeyed, etc. This is really a strange view historically and theologically. The pope's prerogative to define doctrine or settle disputes has never seriously been questioned, but extrapolating from that to handing down weekly laws from on high and dogmas by the day is a huge stretch.
Obviously there's a lot that can be and has been said on these points, but the notion that one can still be Catholic and yet believe that the Church on earth has been abandoned to the extent that there has been no successor of St. Peter for decades and there's not likely to be one for decades more (if ever) is a position that is impossible to square with, e.g., Vatican I's assurance that the Chair would be ever occupied. It would be far better at that point just to become Eastern Orthodox, since they have developed an ecclesiology that dispenses, for all intents and purposes, with the papacy.
I greatly appreciate you both for your indulgence and replies. I don't dispute that the Papal office continues. Yet I find convincing the many citations to Popes, Saints, Doctors of the Church and Canonists stating that notorious heretics immediately lose their office. And given the criteria for all Catholics regarding latae sententiae , is this surprising? (That's a genuine, not rhetorical, question).
In terms of harm to the Church, and even the Papacy itself, a seated heretic feels far worse than a vacant seat, since a Pope who contradicts the many authoritative teachings of his predecessors creates a terrible dilemma for laymen: to which Pope or Popes do we adhere? We can say "all of them", but only if heretical Popes are removed.
If, on the other hand, we must grit our teeth and accept a string of Popes intent on capsizing two millennia of consistent teaching, are we the Church any less abandoned by God? I would say we are equally abandoned and even punished, because the Church is given over to dishonest men who sow confusion regarding the truths needed for salvation.
(As to the Vatican I issue regarding perpetual succession, that is addressed to some degree in the opening statement, though nothing on this subject is fully satisfying)
Well the section of my own master's thesis wherein I expounded Descartes' place in the development of modern philosophy was singled out for praise by my examiners. But perhaps my philosophical views are merely fetishistic, not substantive? Perhaps, but it's hard to see on what (non-fetishistic!) grounds you are assuming the former.
It's true, abusus non tollit usum; but of course the particular question is about if and when abusus tollit officium.
The obvious rejoinder for the sedevacantist is that true papalism must avoid not only hyperpapalism, but also hypopapalism; and that if the papacy is reduced in practice to a non-authoritative status, then whether you admit it or not you have already effectively become ecclesiologically assimilated to something approximating EO. Of course there's much more to say on this, but in general it looks to me like perhaps what is needed is more substantive critical discussion of the precisely papal(!) development of apparently dogmatic(!) hyperpapalism, at least since Piux IX -- as exemplified by recent essays by Vigilius at Rorate Caeli.