Materialiter/Formaliter Sedeprivationists

Jehanne wrote:
So, is he the Pope? Yes, absolutely, in virtue of his office. Is he a Catholic? No, I do not think that he is, therefore, I, as a Catholic, owe him no obedience. It would be like saying that I, as an American, owe obedience to a traitorous President.

How to make sense of this? Easy. Which is of higher authority? The President or the Constitution? Well, duh, it's the latter. The same is true of the Pope; the Ordinary and Supreme Magisterium of the Church is of a higher authority. The Pope can correct all of this, this afternoon (or morning where he is), if he wanted to, by making the necessary ex cathedra pronouncements. Catholic (sic) liberals know this, of course, which is why they are doing everything in their power to diminish the dogma of Papal Infallibility. So, yes, the Pope holds they Keys; he's just not using them, and until he does, I want nothing to do with him.

This is the classic sede error/heresy that confuses the authority of the office for the authority of the person of the Pope.

In fact, this sounds like the “half-a-pope is better than no pope” Materialiter/Formaliter form of sedevacantism (a “sedeprivationist”) by which the pope holds the papacy only in a “material sense, allowing him to nominate cardinals and prevent anyone else from being the pope, but that he lacks a formal possession of the papacy which is needed in order to gain the charisms of absolute authority and infallibility.”

Before I expose the fundamental error behind this false theory, I have a question for Jehanne:

If you hold to the sedeprivationist Materialiter/Formaliter form of sedevacantism, do you thus hold that the valid Pope does NOT possess supernatural Apostolic Primacy, to include the Primacy of Jurisdiction over the universal Church, but retains rather only a natural authority, in so far as the Church is a legal entity, to ensure material succession of the Papacy and thus, the perpetuity of true Apostolic Succession necessary for the perpetuity and indefectibility of the Church?

If so, how do explain how a valid Pope has lost or never possessed what is his by divine right -- full, episcopal, ordinary and immediate Apostolic Primacy over the universal Church?

Jehanne, in his benevolence, seems to have granted the Pope some special privileges particularly with regard to his potential to become once again (or for the first time) the visible Vicar of Christ, if only BXVI “repents of the false new religion, retracts its false liturgical rites, abrogates Vatican II, and condemns the heresies of modernism, ecumenism, and religious liberty. To them, as to this writer, the loss of authority on the part of the Vatican leadership is partial, not total.” (Griff Ruby)

Standing in infallible blatant opposition to this noxious half-a-pope theory is VCI and its First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ which clearly and infallibly declared that the full and immediate divine right of Apostolic Primacy was given to the person of Peter directly by our Lord. Our Lord did not give these powers to an “office”, He gave them to the person of Peter who acts to carry out the various functions of his Apostolic Authority (office) that are inherent within his person, that of teaching, governing and sanctifying.

In other words, no Pope, no Primacy; no Primacy, no Pope – not formally, not materially, not in any way whatsoever; our Lord made it an all or nothing proposition - and promised he would be guiding the Church through His Vicar always and does so even "to this day".

When the pope-elect assumes the office of the Papacy, he assumes the supreme authority of that office within his person, and the “office” has no power or relevancy outside of the person of the Pope who alone can exercise the various functions of his office through his public person.

The Supreme and Ordinary Magisterium is not of an independent “authority” (or office) set apart from the Pope, and would have no meaning apart from the authority of the Pope – that’s what “Supreme” means because it refers to the Supreme Primacy and Authority of the Pope; and, with the Bishops in communion with him it is called the “Universal and Ordinary Magisterium”.

VCI, First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ:

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith, the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd.

4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

And it is precisely this teaching that Jehanne departs from. Jehanne is telling us that the Pope is not a Catholic; yet, if he recognizes BXVI as a valid Pope, he must recognize that the Pope has full and immediate Apostolic Primacy over the universal Church. But this is what is denied if he is a true sedeprivasionsist who denies that a "material pope-in-waiting" cannot possess the divine right of full and immediate Primacy over the universal Church.

And this they call a "valid pope". I think our Lord and VC1 would call it something else.

In other words, Jehanne says he is NOT “bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world”; at least not until Pope BXVI starts acting like a “true” pope.

As such, Jehanne has committed a schismatic act and promotes a heretical position that separates the office from the person and Primacy of the Pope.

And to compare the divine hierarchical Constitution of the Church with the so-called Constitutional form of government of the US is just plain stupid (Jehanne loves to call everything and everyone “stupid” (except for Dawkins), including Doctors and Popes, so its time to see where the “stupid” shoe fits).

Unlike the authority of the President, the Pope receives his Supreme authority immediately from Christ, and there is no earthly authority higher than his – he is judged by no one but God alone (well; no one except Jehanne and his fellow sedeprivasionsists who “judge” when the Pope is unworthy of the Keys, and when he is worthy to assume the “office”, provided he behaves himself).

I must have missed where that was written in The First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ. Perhaps Jehanne would be so kind as to point that out to me.

Mryan wrote,

Unlike the authority of the President, the Pope receives his Supreme authority immediately from Christ, and there is no earthly authority higher than his – he is judged by no one but God alone (well; no one except Jehanne and his fellow sedeprivasionsists who “judge” when the Pope is unworthy of the Keys, and when he is worthy to assume the “office”, provided he behaves himself).

CLASSIC

simple Faith wrote:Mryan wrote,

Unlike the authority of the President, the Pope receives his Supreme authority immediately from Christ, and there is no earthly authority higher than his – he is judged by no one but God alone (well; no one except Jehanne and his fellow sedeprivasionsists who “judge” when the Pope is unworthy of the Keys, and when he is worthy to assume the “office”, provided he behaves himself).

CLASSIC

My spelling of "sedeprivasion[s]ists" with the extra "s" was indeed a classic!

But thanks, simple Faith, I think it reflects a simple truth.