St. Vincent Ferrer is by far the greatest miracle worker Christianity has ever seen. Over 700 miracles were read during his canonization and they stopped because there were too many documented cases for them to read.
He raised over 30 persons from the dead.
He delivered over 70 persons from demonic possession. Just the mention of St. Vincent’s name caused devils to flee.
He converted over 25,000 Jews, 8,000 Muslims, and many heretics to the Catholic Church. He could go into a Synagogue or Mosque and convert all of them in one homily.
He announced that he was the Angel of Judgment from the Apocalypse. When bystanders jeered at him for saying so, he raised a woman back to life who publicly testified that he was indeed the Angel of Judgment.
Despite all of these accomplishments, there is one particular one that is forgotten.
His obsession was Catholic unity. At the time, the Church was divided, not in faith, but in leadership. Up to three men claimed to be pope at the same time. One was in Rome, one in Avignon, and the other in Pisa. St. Vincent Ferrer was Avignon line’s greatest champion, and his influence led to half of the Catholic world giving allegiance to Avignon.
After years of defending the Avignon papacy, St. Vincent Ferrer became a sedevacantist officially on the Feast of the Epiphany, 1416 A.D., at the Castle of Majorca.
Using private judgment, St. Vincent Ferrer denounced his friend Pope Benedict XIII for going into schism because he wouldn’t step down with the other papal claimants in order that the Church could be unified under one pope.
The great miracle worker had many followers and when St. Vincent Ferrer declared the Chair of Peter empty, nearly the whole Catholic world pulled away their allegiance to all papal claimants making way for Pope Martin V.
Without St. Vincent Ferrer, the Great Schism would have lasted many more years.
St. Vincent Ferrer’s example destroys all arguments against the principles of sedevacantism that no warnings, no declarations, etc. are necessary to know that a pope has lost his office due to heresy or schism.
Some might argue that the Avignon line was never the valid line anyway. However, that is a matter of opinion since the Annuario Pontificio technically is not an official Catholic document. It’s all beside the point because St. Vincent believed Benedict XIII was the true pope who lost his office automatically without any declaration from the Church. St. Vincent also rejected the Roman line throughout as well.
St. Vincent Ferrer, a Dominican highly educated in the Faith, became a sedevacantist by his own judgment against his friend, Pope Benedict XIII.
He knew his Faith, and he put it into practice.
St. Vincent Ferrer, pray for us!
Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell 
I could not agree with this article more. It is perfect. My contention going all the way back to Arch-bishop Lefebvre was, when he left ROME he should have declared Rome in HERESY, and seized the title of Pope. Formal or material heretic in the eyes of GOD does not matter. Rome is in heresy and has been since Vatican II. We Catholics would not have been divided IF, the good Arch Bishop finished the TASK of trying to preserve the Faith by seizing in the name of Christ HIS HOLY BRIDE.
Once he drew the line in the sand, I can assure you the road would have been no more difficult than it is today. As a matter of fact it might have been a whole lot easier. Choosing right over wrong is always better, but it does not mean there will be NO pain.
You can never negotiate with the devil! I guess history is proving that right as we see the Society of Saint Pius X negotiating with the devil for alleged unity
Rome has a heretic on the throne of Peter, and we as Catholics should unite and demand our Church BACK.
God Bless your efforts! However your arrows are wasted on nonbelievers. Aim them where they belong in ROME against the Seat of the Anti-Christ.
I recently replied to a private email concerning the article and was asked to place it on my website for the benefit of others. I’ve kept the identity of the person(s) private.
SPERAY: Hello,
I can only give my humble opinion. My replies below in black…
RED: Could you please ask Mr. Speray what the legal basis was on which Saint Vincent declared the Holy See to be vacant?
SPERAY: When I say, declared the Holy See vacant, I don’t mean declared in the sense that he had power over it, but in the sense that he’s declaring what has already happened. I’ll explain below what I think might be the legal basis for St. Vincent’s claim.
RED: What law lost the Pope his office?
SPERAY: It was the Divine law, which is that any pope who becomes a heretic or schismatic automatically loses his office.
RED: I can see how he could possibly have been invalidly elected, but I cannot see how he could have gone into schism by virtue of not having resigned.
SPERAY: Regardless whether Benedict XIII was ever a valid pope (which is debatable), St. Vincent believed he was the true pope. Now, “schismatics properly so called are those who, wilfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church…” (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, Q.39, A.1)
Benedict XIII knew his papacy was hindering the unity of the Church because of the confusion and doubt from the other half of the Catholic world. He also knew that stepping down would allow the confusion to end with a single pope that everybody could agree on; knowing for sure that IT would be the valid line. By not resigning under the circumstances, Benedict XIII was disobeying the law of Christ that the Church should be one. His thirst for power as pope was more important than Catholic unity under an unquestionable single pope.
RED: On the hypothesis that he was ever a true Pope, it is not up to anyone else to dictate to him that he should resign.
SPERAY: I disagree with this statement. The circumstances were so that someone should have done so, and no one was better qualified than St. Vincent Ferrer who was his greatest champion. Being a true pope wouldn’t be beneficial if enough confusion reigned that you may not be the true successor of Peter. The Great Western Schism is one of those extremely rare instances of such a happening.
RED: No one else “not even a saint“ has that legal power. It does not seem to make sense.
SPERAY: No legal power is required to acknowledge that a pope has lost his office. So it’s a moot point. Again, I’m only giving my thoughts on the matter. No one has solved the issue officially. The fact remains that St. Vincent Ferrer became a sedevacantist for the reason given. There is one other possibility, but I’ll keep it to myself for now.
SECOND REPLY BY “RED”
Dear Mr. Speray,
I have read your analysis with interest. It is not completely unflawed!
Crucially, your case depends, amongst other things, on this:
“I disagree with this statement [my statement that ‘ On the hypothesis that he was ever a true Pope, it is not up to anyone else to dictate to him that he should resign.’] The circumstances were so that someone should have done so, and no one was better qualified than St. Vincent Ferrer who was his greatest champion. Being a true pope wouldn’t be beneficial if enough confusion reigned that you may not be the true successor of Peter. The Great Western Schism is one of those extremely rare instances of such a happening.”
No, no one – not even the greatest saint who ever lived – is capable of dictating to a pope. The principle here is as set out in, for instance, Canon 1405 §1 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law: “The First See is judged by no one.” A pope is accountable to no one but Our Lord Himself.
A non-Pope, indeed even an ordinary layman, can recognise that a clergyman has resigned from his office, whether by saying “I resign” or by publicly making some heretical statement either orally or in writing. But he cannot legally force him to resign. And, to the best of my knowledge, Saint Vincent at no stage offered a proof that Benedict XIII had never been a true Pope.
In short, you do not yet seem to have got the bottom of the basis on which Saint Vincent did whatever he did. Nor, yet, have I. (One would need to read a fairly detailed biography of him, which I have not done, at least for a long time.)
With best wishes,
MY REPLY:
Dear “RED”,
I’ve posted these emails in the comment section keeping all names (except myself) private. Anyway, my reply to your latest email below…
I think the problem is a matter of semantics. When you use the word dictate, you are using it differently than I and it’s my fault. I was thinking of dictate as merely telling by urging, since that’s how St. Vincent was acting, but that’s not how dictate is supposed to be used. I apologize.
I recently wrote on my website how Canon 1556 (not 1405) applies concerning judgment on the Holy See. Yes, no one, not even the whole Church can judge the Holy See of a crime. The pope is accountable to no one but the Lord. I agree.
However, there’s no problem with telling the pope in a highly suggestive way what he ought or ought not to do at times. Of course, we have St. Paul’s example with St. Peter. There’s another great example with St. Columbanus who admonished and reprimanded Pope Boniface IV.
I never said or intended to say that St. Vincent forced Benedict XIII to resign. I should have been clear that St. Vincent asked many times for Benedict XIII to resign for the sake of unity.
You stated, “And, to the best of my knowledge, Saint Vincent at no stage offered a proof that Benedict XIII had never been a true Pope.”
Proof or evidence? St. Vincent wrote several treatises on the validity of the Avignon line. If he had absolute proof, it would seem that we wouldn’t question who was truly pope at the time.
I hope that helps..
Sincerely,
Steven Speray
3RH REPLY BY RED
Dear Mr. Speray,
I am happy with your answers.
The main point, then, is that Saint Vincent Ferrer was not a Sedevacantist as we understand the term (he was only making an important contribution to the debate), and that therefore the title of these e-mails ought to be changed! – as also anything on the website or in your blog that suggests that he was.
Best wishes,
MY THIRD REPLY TO RED
St. Vincent was a sedevacantist as I understand the term. He recognized the office as being vacant, but becoming so after a pope lost it, whereas, I believe the office today was never validly filled. In both cases, there were claimants to the office, but the situation is a bit different in how they became vacant.
I just understand the term as a Catholic who believes the Office of Peter is vacant. However, today when a conciliar pope dies or steps down like Benedict XVI, the conciliar Catholics continue to follow the conciliar Church even though they would technically be holding the position of sedevacantism (the Chair is Vacant).
There are Catholic sedevacantists, and there are heretical or schismatic sedevacantists.
I would be interested in hearing how you understand the term.
Sincerely,
Steven
4TH REPLY BY RED
I don’t think my understanding of the term agrees entirely with yours.
Sedevacantist, a modern term, applies to those who are satisfied that the Holy See is vacant because of the operation of Canon Law, etc. It is a term used to contrast such people with those who hold the Holy See to be legally occupied or at least not definitely vacant.
MY 4TH REPLY TO RED
How would St. Vincent not fit under your rubric outside of the term itself being a modern one? For instance, the term pope was used much later for the one holding the office, but the principles, the office, and popes were always there.
And I’m not sure how our terms disagree. Where’s the point of disagreement?
Do you believe that there are non-Catholic sedevacantists? I don’t hold the Dimond brothers as Catholics but schismatics. That’s one example. There are also sedevacantists that believe the Chair has been vacant a hundred years and longer.
5TH REPLY BY RED
Perhaps I have not followed you correctly. I understand you to have said that Saint Vincent reckoned Pope Benedict to have been a true Pope at the time he, Saint Vincent, was writing his treatises on the relevant subject. If that is so, was he not evidently a non-Sedevacantist?
In answer to your other question, I imagine that there can be even Jewish Sedevacantists. As I understand the term, all that is necessary in order to be a Sedevacantist is to hold the Holy See to be vacant at a time when others hold it to be filled.
MY 5TH REPLY TO RED
That’s correct. St. Vincent was not a sedevacantist at that time he wrote his treatises. In my article, I explained that he defended the Avignon papacy and he became a sedevacantist Jan. 6, 1416 by withdrawing his allegiance to Benedict who St. Vincent believed went into schism.
He remained a sedevacantist until Pope Martin V.
We are sedevacantists now, but as soon as the office is filled again, if so ever, we will cease to be sedevacantists.
The only differences is that I (and perhaps you and Eric) believe the Chair today was never validly held by the conciliar popes whereas St. Vincent believed Benedict lost his office. However, the principles are the same for all of us. Popes can’t be heretics or schismatics.
I was using St. Vincent as an example against the likes of novus ordo trads who say warnings and declarations by councils must be made to say that a pope lost his office.
They might argue that St. Vincent was wrong for doing so, but they don’t have any Church teaching that could point to that fact, whereas we can point to him as historic precedent for the present day crisis.
The Remnant recently posted Robert Siscoe’s latest against sedevacantism, but St. Vincent undoes his entire argument.
Godspeed!
Steven
6th REPLY BY RED
On the facts as you present them, it does not seem to make sense. The best of my knowledge, by very definition it is impossible for a pope to go into schism. It seems that either your claim that Saint Vincent is wrong or a fact of some kind is missing. In the meantime, he does not seem to fit into the definition of Sedevacantist.
MY 6TH REPLY TO RED
You stated Mon, 1 Dec 2014 17:24:12 -0000, “As I understand the term, all that is necessary in order to be a Sedevacantist is to hold the Holy See to be vacant at a time when others hold it to be filled.”
St. Vincent held the Holy See to be vacant at a time when others held it to be filled either in Avignon, Rome, or Pisa. That’s a fact of history, and it fits what you have described for what’s necessary in order to be a sedevacantist. St. Vincent became a sedevacantist for a time.
As for schism, a pope can go into schism in different ways. I already explained how Benedict XIII went into schism. Read below another way by Torquemada.
JUAN CARDINAL DE TORQUEMADA [IOANNES DE TURRECREMATA], O.P. (1388-1468) (UNCLE OF THE GRAND INQUISITOR) OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED THEOLOGIAN OF THE COUNCIL OF BASEL/FLORENCE GIVEN BY POPE EUGENIUS IV THE TITLE OF “DEFENDER OF THE FAITH”
“Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not,… it is said in the Acts of the Apostles: ‘One ought to obey God rather than man’; therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over (despiciendus)….” (Summa de Ecclesia [1489], founded upon the doctrine formulated and defined by the Council of Florence and defined by Pope Eugenius IV and Pope Pius IV)
“By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity of the Church is dependent upon its relationship with Christ. The Pope can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ, or by commanding something that is against the divine or natural law. by doing so, the Pope separates himself from the body of the Church because this body is itself linked to Christ by obedience. In this way, the Pope would, without doubt, fall into schism….
“He would do that if he did not observe that which the Universal Church observes in basing herself on the Tradition of the Apostles, or if he did not observe that which has been ordained for the whole world by the universal councils or by the authority of the Apostolic See. Especially is this true with regard to the divine liturgy, as, for example, if he did not wish personally to follow the universal customs and rites of the Church. This same holds true for other aspects of the liturgy in a very general fashion, as would be the case of one unwilling to celebrate with priestly vestments, or in consecrated places, or with candles, or if he refused to make the sign of the cross as other priests do, or other similar things which, in a general way, relate to perpetual usage in conformity with the Canons.
“By thus separating himself apart, and with obstinacy, from the observance of the universal customs and rites of the Church, the Pope could fall into schism. The conclusion is sound and the premises are not in doubt, since just as the Pope can fall into heresy, so also he can disobey and transgress with obstinacy that which has been established for the common order of the Church. Thus it is that [Pope] Innocent [III] states (De Consuetudine) that it is necessary to obey a Pope in all things as long as he does not himself go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the church, he ought not to be obeyed….”
Sincerely,
Steven
7TH REPLY BY RED
Good research. Congratulations and thank you.
I fully accept what Torquemada says, now that you have brought it to my attention. I do not think that he has yet solved our problem, or rather my problem, however. In the presumably comprehensive teaching that Torquemada gives on the subject, nothing that applies directly to the case of Pope Benedict XIII seems to be included. And I apologise if I have missed something or am being dopey, but I cannot find anything in our previous correspondence below that you have said, independently of Torquemada, that proves that this Pope went into schism (and therefore that genuinely makes Saint Vincent a Sedevacantist). Could you please very kindly give me your proof again?
With best wishes,
MY 7TH REPLY TO RED
The answer I gave independent to Torquemada was found in my first email on 11/28/14 to you through Eric, which I claimed was my opinion on the matter based on the historic facts):
Regardless whether Benedict XIII was ever a valid pope (which is debatable), St. Vincent believed he was the true pope.
Now, “schismatics properly so called are those who, wilfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church…” (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, Q.39, A.1)
Benedict XIII knew his papacy was hindering the unity of the Church because of the confusion and doubt from the other half of the Catholic world. He also knew that stepping down would allow the confusion to end with a single pope that everybody could agree on; knowing for sure that IT would be the valid line. By not resigning under the circumstances, Benedict XIII was disobeying the law of Christ that the Church should be one. His thirst for power as pope was more important than Catholic unity under an unquestionable single pope.
St. Vincent had asked him repeatedly over several years to step down for the sake of the Church, so that it could be united under one man who would be universally held as the valid pope. Because of confusion, the Great Western Schism wouldn’t be solved unless everyone stepped down (or be assassinated) AND that point was made apparent to all, especially to Benedict XIII through St. Vincent.
Therefore, in deciding that his place in the world was more important than Catholic unity would necessarily mean that Benedict XIII was separating himself from the law of Christ, which would necessarily separate him from the unity of the Church, thus he goes into schism.
The fact that St. Vincent withdrew allegiance and announced publicly that he no longer believed Benedict XIII was pope showed that he genuinely became a sedevcantist. His reason for doing so wouldn’t affect that point, regardless whether he was right or wrong in his understanding.
I hope this clarifies the issue.
Steven
8TH REPLY BY RED
Thank you. And I am happy to say that this reasoning of yours now looks better than it did when I saw it for the first time!
If there is a weakness in it, it seems to me to be – at least on the basis of my present knowledge – in the third last paragraph of your email. What you say there involves making a judgement on Benedict’s internal motives, and why is it not possible that, rather than being motivated by worldly considerations, Benedict believed himself to have sufficient evidence that he was the true pope and that, in consequence of that, he ought not to resign?
In other words, how could anybody be sure of his motives for not resigning? And, unless those were his true motives, how would he legally have ceased to be pope automatically (which means by deemed resignation)? In yet other words, Saint Vincent surely had insufficient legal reason for his position if he did not know for certain what Benedict’s internal state of mind was?
Meanwhile, I do agree with you that, on the basis of what you say, Saint Vincent does seem to fall genuinely into the category of “Sedevacantist” even though the word had not yet come into existence at that time.
With best wishes and provisional congratulations,
MY 8TH REPLY TO RED
Legally, we don’t have to know the motives of the pontiffs. We judge in the external forum. St. Vincent judged based on the external acts of Benedict XIII.
St. Robert Bellarmine wrote in Book IX, Ch IX, n. 15: “For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.”
The principle is the same with schism. We can’t judge motives, hearts, etc. because this is the internal forum that only God can know. We judge in the external forum. I wrote in an appendix to one of my books:
Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “When an external violation of the law has been committed, malice is presumedin the external forum until the contrary is proven.”
“The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity…Excusing circumstances have to be proved in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist.” (Eric F. Mackenzie, A.M., S.T.L., J.C.L. Rev., The Delict of Heresy, Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Univ. of America, 1932, p. 35. (Cf. Canon 2200.2)
Another canon law manual states: “If the delinquent making this claim be a cleric, his plea for mitigation must be dismissed,either as untrue, or else as indicating ignorance which is affected, or at least crass and supine… His ecclesiastical training in the seminary, with its moral and dogmatic theology, its ecclesiastical history, not to mention its canon law, all insure that the Church’s attitude towards heresy was imparted to him.” (G. McDevitt, The Delict of Heresy, 48, CU, Canon Law Studies 77. Washington: 1932)
The Faithful are not required to read the mind of a delinquent even if that person claims to be pope. The Faithful are not required to presume innocence of a cleric, especially the pope, before concluding that he is a heretic.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 13), June 29, 1896: “You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held.”
Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794: “47. Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called ‘ipso facto’ have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect” – false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.
Therefore, St. Vincent Ferrer followed the principles of the law. He believed that he had sufficient legal reasons for withdrawing allegiance to Benedict XIII since the situation was apparently made very clear to him (B. XIII) (and it was clear to most all of the Catholics at that time) that stepping down was the only way to solve the crisis. Unity for the Church is the Law of God.
Again, I’m just giving my opinion based on the facts that I have acquired. It all seems to fit for me.
Let me know if this explanation is sound.
Godspeed!
Steven
May you all have a blessed Advent.
Pete
You too, Pete. Godspeed!
From Pope Pius XII to Pope Francis they all have been using an irrational premise in the interpretation of magisterial texts.
For instance the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 says God is not limited to the Sacraments and also the Church knows of no means to eternal beatifude other than the baptism of water. This is a contradiction.It contradicts the Principle of Non Contradiction.
SPERAY REPLIES: You left out “ASSURES” which is the key word, but it doesn’t contradict anything. The fact that you say such foolishness means you don’t know the Catholic Faith. You’ve created a religion in your head thinking it’s Catholic. IT’S NOT. It’s Lionelism.
How can you say that de facto God is not limited to the Sacraments and also say God is limited to the Sacraments for salvation?
SPERAY: NO ONE SAID GOD WAS LIMITED TO THE SACRAMENTS FOR SALVATION. You’ve assumed it.
This error was not corrected by Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI. Pope Francis has also accepted it as have all the cardinals and bishops.
SPERAY REPLIES: They aren’t Catholic so your point is moot. However, they don’t have to correct something that’s only erroneous in your head.
Pope Pius XII and all the popes who have followed him have accepted that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible to us in the present times.
SPERAY REPLIES: Another problem in your head. NO ONE SAID BOD is visible. Salvation is not visible in any respect unless it was made known in a special way by God. Which saint in heaven is visible to us?????? Answer that question.
They would have to be visible and known to us to be explicit exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney.
SPERAY REPLIES: Feeney’s error was that he believed in Baptism of Desire, but such a justified person wouldn’t go to heaven or hell. He said he doesn’t know where such a person would go. In other words, Feeney believe that person could be justified WITHOUT baptism, but he still wouldn’t go to heaven. YOU DON’T THE TRUTH ABOUT FEENEY! I’ve read everything he taught.
We have it here once. Defacto every one needs to enter the Church ( extra ecclesiam nulla salus) but some do not have to enter the Church for salvation?
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG! Everyone needs to enter the Church but not formally. You’ve assumed formally, but no pope or council ever taught it. Pope St. Pius X taught that men can be saved without baptism. So did Pope ST. Pius V, and every pope since Trent.
The popes have been interpreting magisterial documents with this inference of being able to see in heaven and on earth people who are saved with the baptism of desire etc.They can see the dead ?! It is with this irrationality that theology produces heretical results. The liberals accept the result and the traditionalists and sedevacantists reject it.
SPERAY REPLIES: No pope has ever implied even by inference of being able to see the dead. You personal made-up theology is a lie.
Sedevancantism is unfortunate. They use the same irrational premise which changes doctrine and theology. It is the same error being made by the popes.Sedevacantists have only have to avoid the inference in the interpretation of magisterial documents, example Vatican Council II, and the result is traditional.
SPERAY REPLIES: This statement is so silly, it’s not worth responding to.
No one has yet explained this to Pope Francis. This irrationality has been the hallmark of the Jesuits since the time they expelled Fr.Leonard Feeney from their community.
SPERAY REPLIES: You don’t know the Catholic Faith, and you don’t know Feeney. You’ve simply created a religion that exist only in your head. Do us all a favor and stop spreading Lionelism in comment sections. Keep it on your own blog.
-Lionel Andrades
Feast of St.Francis Xavier.
DECEMBER 3, 2014
Possibilities cannot be defacto exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in the present times
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/possibilities-cannot-be-defacto.html
SPERAY REPLIES: You didn’t answer the question that I asked you to answer specifically. Your other replies demonstrate that you don’t understand a word I said. I feel sorry for you. I will no longer deal with you since you don’t have the ability to understand very simple things, and you don’t answer the questions. I’m just wasting my time. No more Lionelism on my blog please.
Lionel referred to “the traditional interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney” with regard to his rejection of BOD/BOB. Fr. Feeney’s interpretation was anything but the traditional interpretation. It was a novelty.
For the traditional Catholic interpretation, see here: https://archive.org/details/SourcesOfBaptismOfBloodBaptismOfDesire
There are several books about St. Vincent Ferrer on Amazon, I was curious if you recommend them or have any about his life you recommend. I found a book by St. Vincent called “Treatise on the Spiritual Life.” Have you ever read it? The others appear to be written by Andrew Pradel. Thanks
The Treatise on the Spiritual Life is excellent. It’s just a little pamphlet but it’s dynamite. Yes, Pradel’s book is really good. I’ve read it several times. Also, Henri Gheon’s book is most excellent.
See the books tagged “Saint Vincent Ferrer approximately 1350–1419” in the St. Isidore e-book library.
I read 2 Scholarly books on St. Vincent Ferrer, the story that he brought back a woman from the dead to prove that he was the angel of the apocalypse is from the 16th century not 15th. And there is good evidence that he did not write ‘A Treatise on the Spiritual Life’ but another theologian. He was the angel of the apocalypse and probably the greatest saint of all time even surpassing St.Francis of Assisi cause he was prophesied by St.John the Apostle. But there are lots of exaggerations about him i.e. bringing back to life a chopped up baby.
St. Vincent held that the Council of Constance’s deposition of Benedict XIII was valid, but the Council’s election of Martin V invalid. On Spain’s and St. Vincent’s subtraction from Benedict XIII, cf. Daileader p. 165-6.Daileader p. 172:
Then there are Vincent’s sermons, which similarly indicate that Vincent never accepted the Council of Constance’s legitimacy or authority. Extant sermons datable to the years 1415-1419 are fewer than sermons datable to the years 1411-1414. Nonetheless, they do exist. One searches them and Vincent’s undated sermons in vain for passages in which he advised his listeners to follow his example and submit themselves to the authority of the Council of Constance, as Gerson would have it, or urged his listeners to pray for Pope Martin V, the one and only true pope, as the canonization witness Bourdiec would have it. Instead, after January 6, 1416, Vincent said little about the schism, and what little he said indicates his continued rejection of the Council of Constance. On June 4, 1417–a date known through his reference to the age of Antichrist–and now in France, Vincent told his listeners that the schism had lasted nearly 40 years (ja ha prop de .XL. anys que dura lo cisma) and that presently there were three [anti]popes in the world: John, Gregory, and Benedict.⁴² [Sermons 1:208 (June 4, 1417).] For Vincent to assert on June 4, 1417, that there were three [anti]popes in the world was both stupefying and revealing. The Council of Constance had deposed John XXIII and Gregory XII fully two years earlier; Vincent had read aloud the Spanish subtraction 18 months earlier; the Council of Constance was still in session. Vincent mentioned none of these facts. The only concession that the friar made to changed circumstances was this: unlike earlier in Spain, he did not follow up his observation that there were three [anti]popes in the world with the even more provocative proclamation that, of the three, Benedict was the legitimate one. But there were still three [anti]popes. For Vincent, preaching in France in June 1417, the Council of Constance had done nothing to change the status of these three. The deposing of even Benedict’s rivals was illegitimate.Just as significantly, Vincent passed over obvious opportunities to proclaim his acceptance of the Council of Constance or Martin V. …
Often we hear about St. Vincent et al. supporting one pope (Clement VII, Avignon pope) and St. Catherine of Siena et al. supporting another (Urban VI, Roman pope), both elected in 1378 (cf. this table). But St. Vincent’s sedevacantist period began in 1416, when he disavowed himself of his friend Cdl. Pedro de Luna, elected Benedict XIII in 1394, of whom the saint was his confessor. St. Vincent died in 1419.
Some references:
St. Vincent wrote his Tractatus de moderno ecclesie scismate in 1380. The most recent biography of the saint, Daileader’s Saint Vincent Ferrer, His World and Life: Religion and Society in Late Medieval Europe (2016), describes the Tractatus on p. 22:
Vincent asked first whether, in a time of schism, it was necessary to accept a single true pope or whether one could accept both or neither. Having established in his response to the first question that one must accept either Urban or Clement as pope, Vincent then posed the second question, namely, which of the two men elected by the College of Cardinals was the true pope. Having established that Clement’s election alone was valid, Vincent then asked whether this truth had to be preached and revealed to the Christian people. To each of these three major questions, the friar assigned five additional questions. Vincent answered all 15 questions within a scholastic framework: he posed his answer; cited his rational arguments (rationes) and his authorities (chiefly Aquinas, named on several occasions, and the Bible, with some references to Augustine and Aristotle); raised objections to his own arguments; and then rebutted the objections.
Ch. 9 ¶¶21-23 of Andrew Pradel, O.P.’s 1863 St. Vincent Ferrer: Angel of the Judgment explains why St. Vincent can be considered a sedevacantist:
…the King of Aragon detached himself from his obedience to Benedict XIII, and from that moment the cause of the union was accomplished.
The King’s edict was published on the 6th of January, 1416.
Our Saint spent the beginning of the year in traveling through many provinces of Aragon to withdraw the people from obedience to Benedict XIII, and to attach them to that of the Council of Constance, an undertaking by no means easy considering the long period in which those countries had lived under the spiritual dominion of Peter de Luna. But to all their prejudices the Saint opposed solid reasons, which carried conviction to every mind. In a short time, Spain, as well as Italy and the rest of Christendom, awaited with submission the choice of the Council of Constance, ready to acknowledge the elect of the Council as the veritable Vicar of Jesus Christ.
But St. Vincent refused to attend the Council of Constance and disagreed with its outcome, the election of Martin V! St. Vincent never publicly recognized Martin V or the Council of Constance (Daileader pp. 168-76). Thus, the great saintly logician just kept preaching repentance. This is certainly a great lesson for us today.
Blessed be the Holy barque of St Peter.
‘I protest that I will live and die in this holy faith’ (From the act of faith)
[…] [1] https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2014/11/27/the-sedevacantist-saint-vincent-ferrer/ […]