A question of logic??

Let me attempt, yet again, to put the sedevacantist position in syllogism:

  1. A heretic cannot be pope or retain the papacy.
  2. Modern popes (since Pius XII or Vatican II) have been heretics.
  3. Therefore

  4. Popes since Pius XII cannot be valid popes.

My issue is with (2): Who says?? Etymologically heresy means one has a choice in the context of doctrine. Without a doubt it is the Church herself, by the very nature of heresy, which declares people or ideas to be outside of the norm, that is, to be heretical.

  1. Are sedevacantists declaring themselves to be the Church in every sense, yet without a visible head??
  2. Is the Radical Traditionalist position (especially those who deny any valid claimant to the papacy) a means vs ends discussion??
  3. Is all Radical Traditionalism an elevation of papacy over Church??

Leave a comment

Filed under Philosophical Theology

Comments are closed.