Sedevacantist Watch…
SEDEVACANTISM
KILL CHAIN
Guest post by Tradical
A kill chain lists the
critical links of an attack; if any 'link' in the chain is broken, the attack
fails. The kill chain for 'sedevacantism' is no
different as it describes a chain of events (causes)
that must have occurred in order to rationally and objectively conclude that a
specific Pope was either invalidly elected or has been deprived of the office
of the Vicar of Christ (effect). Without an unbroken chain of causes, the
conclusion of Sede Vacante is rendered false.
[Note from Salza/Siscoe: As we explained in
our article on Fact and Law, the causes (facts), such as the heretical doctrine
(material cause) and pertinacity (formal cause) would have to be established by
the competent ecclesiastical authority, before the effect (loss of office)
would occur. As long as the Church
tolerates a heretical Pope (i.e., before the causes/facts have been established), he remains
a true Pope, as Fr. Laymann, S.J. explained here.
We should also note that because it is technically Christ who deposes an heretical Pope (by severing the bond that unites the man to the office), the crime of heresy (matter and form), even after being established and declared by the Church, is only the dispositive cause for the loss of office (it disposes the Pope for the loss of office). Christ himself is the efficient cause who acts by severing the bond uniting him to the office.
One common sedevacantist fallacy is to ignore the Kill Chain completely by placing the effect before the cause. Typically it manifests itself as a strong belief concerning the documents of the Second Vatican Council as being formally heretical. Therefore the sedevacantist concludes that the Popes who convened / closed the Council (John XXIII, Paul VI), and accepted it (John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis) could not possibly be valid Vicars of Christ.
When they encounter a Church Doctrine that contradicts their conclusion (i.e., that the recent Popes have not been true Popes), they re-imagine it to suit their belief instead of submitting to the Church Doctrine and admitting that their understanding is flawed.
We should also note that because it is technically Christ who deposes an heretical Pope (by severing the bond that unites the man to the office), the crime of heresy (matter and form), even after being established and declared by the Church, is only the dispositive cause for the loss of office (it disposes the Pope for the loss of office). Christ himself is the efficient cause who acts by severing the bond uniting him to the office.
One common sedevacantist fallacy is to ignore the Kill Chain completely by placing the effect before the cause. Typically it manifests itself as a strong belief concerning the documents of the Second Vatican Council as being formally heretical. Therefore the sedevacantist concludes that the Popes who convened / closed the Council (John XXIII, Paul VI), and accepted it (John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis) could not possibly be valid Vicars of Christ.
When they encounter a Church Doctrine that contradicts their conclusion (i.e., that the recent Popes have not been true Popes), they re-imagine it to suit their belief instead of submitting to the Church Doctrine and admitting that their understanding is flawed.
DOGMATIC FACT
The
doctrine that the sedevacantists re-imagine is the doctrine of Dogmatic Facts.
According
to Dr. Ludwig Ott, dogmatic facts are historical facts, that while not revealed
are “intrinsically connected with revealed truth, for example the legality of a
Pope or a General Council”. In short, there is no confusion about the
legitimacy of a the election of a specific Vicar of Christ as the Church has
provided us with an infallible means of “knowing”who was validly elected.
The
following diagram outlines four commentaries on the manner of how the
infallible dogmatic fact of the legitimacy of a Pontiff's election is
established.
Following the reasoning of Hunter and Van Noort, all
that is required is to establish infallibly that a Pope's election was valid
was the acceptance by the Bishops in union with Rome. Van Noort's explanation is further linked to
the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, which is likewise infallible.
St.
Aphonsus and Billot include with the acceptance
of the Bishops (Ecclesia Docens) that of the other members of the
Church, presumably including the laity (Ecclesia Discens).
The
sedevacantists that I have debated ignore Hunter, Van Noort and St. Alphonsus
and exclude portions of Billot's thesis by focusing on the section highlighted
in Green. The claim made is that no
Catholics hold the post conciliar Popes as 'rules of faith' therefore they
aren't Pope.
One
thing is certain, that there was no question of the legitimacy of the election
of Pope John XXIII and Paul VI at the time of their election. They were accepted completely by even those
who would later assert that the See of Peter was vacant.
With
respect to the successors of Pope Paul VI, we can also have equal certainty as
firstly all subsequent Pontiffs have been universally accepted by the Bishops
of the Catholic Church (Hunter and Van Noort).
We can also have moral certainty following St. Alphonsus and Billot as
there existed a morally unanimous acceptance of the successors of Pope Paul VI
as validly elected Popes by the Faithful as well as the Bishops.
In the
name of intellectual honest, sedevacantists need to either accept or reject the
Doctrine of Dogmatic Facts instead of re-imagining it to suit their beliefs.
Otherwise, they are simply imitating the modernists whom they profess to
expose.
___________________________________________________
1.) We should note that because the loss of office is caused by God, it would not truly be an "effect" of heresy. Heresy, even after being established and/or declared by the Church, would only be the dispositive cause for the loss of office (it would dispose the Pope for the loss of office). Christ himself is the efficient cause, Who severs the bond uniting the man to the Papacy.
