Replies

Not quite. I presume SVs would say that as they have kept the Faith, they constitute the Church.

The Church is a visible entity of members professing the same faith, receiving the same sacraments, and united under the same head; not an invisible union of the faithful, nor a union without things to unite - the sacraments.

NOs would say that as the SVs are not united to Rome, they are outside of the Church. Am I not right?

Well, one should look at it as to whether they are pertinacious in their error. There are some SV's who sincerely believe there is no Pope because of some defect, or that the Pope is only Pope materially by occupying the office and not yet being deposed by the Church, but not formally, by actually being Pope. And that if these things were corrected, either a proper Pope could be elected, or the "material" incumbent could be retrovalidated. There are other SV's who believe that the Papacy has been swept away and the heirarchy and priesthood apostacized, and thus no valid sacraments, and that the Church is dissolved as a proper visible entity and will not be reconstituted short of a formal intervention of heavenly powers. This latter position is outright heresy. The former position is an error of theological fact which can cause schism depending upon the actions taken by the adherents. I've known holders of the former position who were outright schismatics and only would go to independent chapels, and others who held communion with the rest of the Church and attended the indult Mass, for example.

Of interest, one example of Theological Notes attached to teachings is the one below:

http://www.the-pope.com/theolnotes.html

It cites:

Theological Note: Theologically certain.
Explanation: A truth logically following from one proposition which is Divinely revealed and another which is historically certain.
Example: Legitimacy of Pope Pius XI.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Error (in theology).
Effects of denial: Mortal sin against faith.

Sedevacantism in the first form given above is properly a theological error.

There are some SV's who sincerely believe there is no Pope because of some defect, or that the Pope is only Pope materially by occupying the office and not yet being deposed by the Church, but not formally, by actually being Pope. And that if these things were corrected, either a proper Pope could be elected, or the "material" incumbent could be retrovalidated. There are other SV's who believe that the Papacy has been swept away and the heirarchy and priesthood apostacized, and thus no valid sacraments, and that the Church is dissolved as a proper visible entity and will not be reconstituted short of a formal intervention of heavenly powers. This latter position is outright heresy. The former position is an error of theological fact

Exactly the distinction I was trying to make in my 101, thank you.