Choose style:

Author Topic: Sedeprivationism  (Read 1141 times)

onosurf

  • Member
  • Posts: 376
Sedeprivationism
« on: September 30, 2013, 11:50:PM »
Here's one I've never heard...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedeprivationism

Sedeprivationism is an ideological school or party of the traditionalist Roman Catholic movement that holds that Popes since John XXIII have been defective Popes, following the principles of the late French theologian Michel Louis Guérard des Lauriers, O.P., as Lauriers set it out in his thesis published in the Cahiers du Cassiciacum and therefore called the "Cassiciacum thesis".
According to Laurier's thesis, Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and (implicitly) Benedict XVI and Francis were or are defective Popes in that, due to their supposed espousal of the "modernist heresy", their consent to become Pope was faulty or defective, so that they became potentially Pope, but did not attain to the papacy.
This idea is also described in another manner by saying that they became Pope materially but not formally (the formula, "papa materialiter non formaliter").
Two consequences flow out of this thesis:
There is no real sede vacante since a man fills the role of potential Pope;
If the current potential Pope recants from Modernism and returns to Catholicism, he will complete the process and attain to the fullness of the papacy.
The terms sedeprivationism and sedeprivationist were coined by the late English Sedevacantist William J. Morgan.
Besides the late bishop Michel Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., those Traditionalists prominent for subscribing to this explanation are: Bishops Robert F. McKenna, O.P. and Donald Sanborn in the U.S.A., and Fr. Francesco Ricossa and his Istituto Mater Bonii Consilii (alternative name Sodalitium Pianum), to which Bishop Geert Jan Stuyver belongs, located in Flanders as well as the cities of Turin and Rome in Italy.
The Traditional Latin Mass turned pagans into Catholics.  The Novus Ordo Mass turned Catholics into pagans.

Farmer88

  • Gold Fish
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 210
  • Gender: Male
Re: Sedeprivationism
« Reply #1 on: September 30, 2013, 11:59:PM »
Yeah, I've heard of it. It's an attempt to rationalize a pope actually existing, but at the same time, not. Falls flat since it basically is sedevacantism that attempts to justify there actually being someone who sits on the throne. And Donald Sanborn? Haven't heard that name in a long time, wasn't he SSPV for a while?
I am imperfect in many things, nevertheless I want my brethren and kinsfolk to know my nature so that they may be able to perceive my soul's desire.
- St. Patrick

et dixit mihi factum est ego sum Alpha et Omega initium et finis ego sitienti dabo de fonte aquae vivae gratis
- Apocalypsis 21:6

lumine

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,109
  • Gender: Male
Re: Sedeprivationism
« Reply #2 on: October 01, 2013, 12:08:AM »
The subject has been bandied about here before:

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3459580.30.html


Here's one I've never heard...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedeprivationism

Sedeprivationism is an ideological school or party of the traditionalist Roman Catholic movement that holds that Popes since John XXIII have been defective Popes, following the principles of the late French theologian Michel Louis Guérard des Lauriers, O.P., as Lauriers set it out in his thesis published in the Cahiers du Cassiciacum and therefore called the "Cassiciacum thesis".
According to Laurier's thesis, Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and (implicitly) Benedict XVI and Francis were or are defective Popes in that, due to their supposed espousal of the "modernist heresy", their consent to become Pope was faulty or defective, so that they became potentially Pope, but did not attain to the papacy.
This idea is also described in another manner by saying that they became Pope materially but not formally (the formula, "papa materialiter non formaliter").
Two consequences flow out of this thesis:
There is no real sede vacante since a man fills the role of potential Pope;
If the current potential Pope recants from Modernism and returns to Catholicism, he will complete the process and attain to the fullness of the papacy.
The terms sedeprivationism and sedeprivationist were coined by the late English Sedevacantist William J. Morgan.
Besides the late bishop Michel Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., those Traditionalists prominent for subscribing to this explanation are: Bishops Robert F. McKenna, O.P. and Donald Sanborn in the U.S.A., and Fr. Francesco Ricossa and his Istituto Mater Bonii Consilii (alternative name Sodalitium Pianum), to which Bishop Geert Jan Stuyver belongs, located in Flanders as well as the cities of Turin and Rome in Italy.
All for You, my God.

PolishTrad

  • Member
  • Posts: 774
  • Gender: Male
Re: Sedeprivationism
« Reply #3 on: October 01, 2013, 07:17:AM »
Am I mistaken, or shouldn't sedeprivationists acknowledge the whole Catholic hierarchy but the pope? If they consider Francis became pope 'materially but not formally', and not formally because of his heresies, and they have nothing against his ordination (in the new rite). So, although the pope cannot be a heretic, the rest could be, no? So all cardinals, bishops and archbishops are, from the sedeprivationist point of view, 'valid and licit'?
Fr Rafał Trytek is a sedeprivationist and he refers to NO priests as priests. Without inverted commas.
Non sum dignus.

Recordare, Iesu pie,
Quod sum causa tuæ viæ:
Ne me perdas illa die.

Do not despair; one of the thieves was saved. Do not presume; one of the thieves was damned.

OldMan

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,460
Re: Sedeprivationism
« Reply #4 on: October 01, 2013, 08:03:AM »
Am I mistaken, or shouldn't sedeprivationists acknowledge the whole Catholic hierarchy but the pope? If they consider Francis became pope 'materially but not formally', and not formally because of his heresies, and they have nothing against his ordination (in the new rite). So, although the pope cannot be a heretic, the rest could be, no? So all cardinals, bishops and archbishops are, from the sedeprivationist point of view, 'valid and licit'?
Fr Rafał Trytek is a sedeprivationist and he refers to NO priests as priests. Without inverted commas.

Don't worry he doesn't think they are real priests... By the way, "inverted commas" are called quotation marks.
"It would be better to teach demons than to try to convince heretics." –St. Ephraem the Syrian, Doctor of the Church


PolishTrad

  • Member
  • Posts: 774
  • Gender: Male
Re: Sedeprivationism
« Reply #5 on: October 01, 2013, 08:09:AM »
Am I mistaken, or shouldn't sedeprivationists acknowledge the whole Catholic hierarchy but the pope? If they consider Francis became pope 'materially but not formally', and not formally because of his heresies, and they have nothing against his ordination (in the new rite). So, although the pope cannot be a heretic, the rest could be, no? So all cardinals, bishops and archbishops are, from the sedeprivationist point of view, 'valid and licit'?
Fr Rafał Trytek is a sedeprivationist and he refers to NO priests as priests. Without inverted commas.

Don't worry he doesn't think they are real priests... By the way, "inverted commas" are called quotation marks.
How do you know he doesn't? And I know inverted commas are called quotation marks. But in British English, which I was taught (and still am), it is also a common name for this punctuation mark -> ‘
Non sum dignus.

Recordare, Iesu pie,
Quod sum causa tuæ viæ:
Ne me perdas illa die.

Do not despair; one of the thieves was saved. Do not presume; one of the thieves was damned.

Landless Laborer

  • Member
  • Posts: 113
  • Gender: Male
  • Save us from the fires of hell.
Re: Sedeprivationism
« Reply #6 on: October 01, 2013, 03:43:PM »
Am I mistaken, or shouldn't sedeprivationists acknowledge the whole Catholic hierarchy but the pope? If they consider Francis became pope 'materially but not formally', and not formally because of his heresies, and they have nothing against his ordination (in the new rite). So, although the pope cannot be a heretic, the rest could be, no? So all cardinals, bishops and archbishops are, from the sedeprivationist point of view, 'valid and licit'?
Fr Rafał Trytek is a sedeprivationist and he refers to NO priests as priests. Without inverted commas.

Don't worry he doesn't think they are real priests... By the way, "inverted commas" are called quotation marks.
How do you know he doesn't? And I know inverted commas are called quotation marks.  But in British English, which I was taught (and still am), it is also a common name for this punctuation mark -> ‘

You Slavs are well-known to be the best multilinguals.  :tiphat: Except for your handle, no one would know your English was acquired.  Now, when you say, above, that the pope cannot be a heretic....what are you referring to?  Which doctrine disallows this?  Would you say that the antipopes of the past were not heretics, but rather mistaken for the true pope? 
« Last Edit: October 01, 2013, 03:52:PM by Landless Laborer »

maldon

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,336
Re: Sedeprivationism
« Reply #7 on: October 01, 2013, 03:50:PM »
You are quite right, PolishTrad, on both issues (they should acknowledge all hierarchy except the pope, or perhaps pass judgment on each member of the hierarchy separately as to his modernism or orthodoxy; and on the other issue as well: the term 'inverted commas' is entirely normal).

I suppose ti all comes down to some version of: all hierarchy are evil, except ours. Or, we need obey no authority, except ours.
"The days have gone down in the West, behind the hills, into shadow." - Theoden, King.

PolishTrad

  • Member
  • Posts: 774
  • Gender: Male
Re: Sedeprivationism
« Reply #8 on: October 01, 2013, 04:04:PM »
Am I mistaken, or shouldn't sedeprivationists acknowledge the whole Catholic hierarchy but the pope? If they consider Francis became pope 'materially but not formally', and not formally because of his heresies, and they have nothing against his ordination (in the new rite). So, although the pope cannot be a heretic, the rest could be, no? So all cardinals, bishops and archbishops are, from the sedeprivationist point of view, 'valid and licit'?
Fr Rafał Trytek is a sedeprivationist and he refers to NO priests as priests. Without inverted commas.

Don't worry he doesn't think they are real priests... By the way, "inverted commas" are called quotation marks.
How do you know he doesn't? And I know inverted commas are called quotation marks.  But in British English, which I was taught (and still am), it is also a common name for this punctuation mark -> ‘

You Slavs are well-known to be the best multilinguals.  :tiphat: Except for your handle, no one would know your English was acquired.  Now, when you say, above, that the pope cannot be a heretic....what are you referring to?  Which doctrine disallows this?  Would you say that the antipopes of the past were not heretics, but rather mistaken for the true pope? 
Thank you for your kind words. I've just started my first year of English philology MA studies. As for heresies: to be honest, I don't know which doctrine disallows a heretic to become pope. However, since I began my 'journey' with traditional Catholicism, I've read everywhere that it in fact is so. I'm not good at remembering all Church's rules and documents; therefore, I can't answer this question. But I'm sure virtually everybody else at Fisheaters would be able to do this. Now, antipopes: I would say that a minority if any at all of them were heretics. Rather, they were usurpers.
Quote from: maldon
they should acknowledge all hierarchy except the pope, or perhaps pass judgment on each member of the hierarchy separately as to his modernism or orthodoxy;
But, from my understanding, a heretic cannot be a pope only. It does not refer to bishops. Or, if it does, please let someone correct me. But if I'm not wrong, there are two possibilities:
a) sedeprivationists do not obey the hierarchy (excluding the Holy Father) because it was appointed by Rome and I at least see some logic here
b) sedeprivationists should treat the hierarchy just as SSPX does: acknowledge and resist, or something like that. Not reject altogether.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2013, 04:11:PM by PolishTrad »
Non sum dignus.

Recordare, Iesu pie,
Quod sum causa tuæ viæ:
Ne me perdas illa die.

Do not despair; one of the thieves was saved. Do not presume; one of the thieves was damned.

VinnyF

  • Member
  • Posts: 252
  • Gender: Male
    • Traditional Catholic Radio
Re: Sedeprivationism
« Reply #9 on: October 01, 2013, 04:37:PM »
Am I mistaken, or shouldn't sedeprivationists acknowledge the whole Catholic hierarchy but the pope? If they consider Francis became pope 'materially but not formally', and not formally because of his heresies, and they have nothing against his ordination (in the new rite). So, although the pope cannot be a heretic, the rest could be, no? So all cardinals, bishops and archbishops are, from the sedeprivationist point of view, 'valid and licit'?
Fr Rafał Trytek is a sedeprivationist and he refers to NO priests as priests. Without inverted commas.

Don't worry he doesn't think they are real priests... By the way, "inverted commas" are called quotation marks.

I believe the argument is that a heretic is not Catholic and therefore cannot be the Pope.  There have been other Popes put on trial in the past for heresy, all posthumously, and convicted.  Church history would therefore argue that a Pope can be guilty of heresy but his peers in condemnation can only be succeeding popes, by all accounts of church history.
How do you know he doesn't? And I know inverted commas are called quotation marks.  But in British English, which I was taught (and still am), it is also a common name for this punctuation mark -> ‘

You Slavs are well-known to be the best multilinguals.  :tiphat: Except for your handle, no one would know your English was acquired.  Now, when you say, above, that the pope cannot be a heretic....what are you referring to?  Which doctrine disallows this?  Would you say that the antipopes of the past were not heretics, but rather mistaken for the true pope? 
Thank you for your kind words. I've just started my first year of English philology MA studies. As for heresies: to be honest, I don't know which doctrine disallows a heretic to become pope. However, since I began my 'journey' with traditional Catholicism, I've read everywhere that it in fact is so. I'm not good at remembering all Church's rules and documents; therefore, I can't answer this question. But I'm sure virtually everybody else at Fisheaters would be able to do this. Now, antipopes: I would say that a minority if any at all of them were heretics. Rather, they were usurpers.
Quote from: maldon
they should acknowledge all hierarchy except the pope, or perhaps pass judgment on each member of the hierarchy separately as to his modernism or orthodoxy;
But, from my understanding, a heretic cannot be a pope only. It does not refer to bishops. Or, if it does, please let someone correct me. But if I'm not wrong, there are two possibilities:
a) sedeprivationists do not obey the hierarchy (excluding the Holy Father) because it was appointed by Rome and I at least see some logic here
b) sedeprivationists should treat the hierarchy just as SSPX does: acknowledge and resist, or something like that. Not reject altogether.