Sedevacantism Kill Chain - True of False Pope

+

JMJ

This is my second article for True or False Pope.  In my design career jumping to a conclusion has bitten me a number of times.  This is why one of the key elements in project management and design engineering is listing your assumptions.  The project plan then needs to incorporate a way to validate those assumptions before it is too late.

Sedevacantists have made this same mistake time and time again.  They are scandalized (rightly so!) be all the shenanigans of the Popes, assume that this can't be so, and jump to the conclusion that the current reigning Pontiff cannot possibly be the Vicar of Christ.

If the sedevacantists accept the doctrine of the Church, then following the doctrine of dogmatic facts they would have to admit that we haven't had a sedevacante since the death of Pius XII (or whatever Pope they hold to be last validly elected).

I hope this article helps!

Keep the Faith!

P^3

Sedevacantism Kill Chain

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 dangerous speculation.

Illustration 1: Sedevacantism Kill Chain

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 belief, they re-imagine it to suit their belief instead of submitting to Church Doctrine and admitting that their understanding is flawed.

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. Alphonsus 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.

P³

Tradical