Catholic opinions about Sedevacantism?

[rr1213]

Pax vobiscum!

Sedevacantists are Protestants. Plain and simple. They are just on the other side of the spectram.

In Christ,
Rand

Sorry, we’re not taking them. Look at their doctrines. They may be schismatic to the Catholic Church, but they are not Protestants.

 

[maurin]

Sorry, we’re not taking them. Look at their doctrines. They may be schismatic to the Catholic Church, but they are not Protestants.

Your post has not convinced me–not that you have a responsibility to convince anyone of anything. But did not the deformation of the Body of Christ come about because a man decided to usurp the authority which God gave to Peter and to His Church? Do we not refer to this deformation as the Protestant Reformation (deformation is more accurate, I think)? It seems the sedevacantists have done the same: usurp authority that was not divinely bestowed upon them, and thus continuing the deformation.

 

[rr1213]

Your post has not convinced me–not that you have a responsibility to convince anyone of anything. But did not the deformation of the Body of Christ come about because a man decided to usurp the authority which God gave to Peter and to His Church? Do we not refer to this deformation as the Protestant Reformation (deformation is more accurate, I think)? It seems the sedevacantists have done the same: usurp authority that was not divinely bestowed upon them, and thus continuing the deformation.

Actually you and the Orthodox split 500 years prior to the Protestant Reformation. My point is that Sedevacantists Catholics are not reformed in any sense of the word. I seriously doubt that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer, Wesley, etc., etc. would find any of these folks to be Protestant in doctrine. These are folks who believe that they are more ***Catholic ***than the Pope.

 

[gorman64]

However their argument is flawed for many reasons among which is Humanae Vitae. If Paul VI wasn’t a true Pope and was some heretic then he would NEVER EVER EVER have written Humanae Vitae. This they can’t deny but yet they do.

There are problems with Humanae Vitae. Do you understand what happened in the five years of study prior to the issuing of HV?

Also, the ends of marriage were leveled and reversed. Here is a comparison the code of canon law (1917 vs. 1983):

Canon 1013 (1917 Code). The primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children. The secondary purpose is to furnish mutual aid and a remedy for concupiscence. The essential characteristics of marriage are its unity and indissolubility, which obtain a special stability in Christian marriage by virtue of the sacrament.

Canon 1055 § 1 (1983 Code). The marriage covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.

 

[Windmill]

Paul VI did not seem to be drawing up a doctrinal hierarchy of truths when he spoke of the ends of marriage, he was just stating facts. Given the times, I think Paul VI did the wise thing in not over-emphasizing the subordination of mutual aid between spouses. It seems like a pastoral issue to reference both ends without making explicit reference to their relative importance.

Why does this concern sedevacantists?

 

[Unfinished]

Their page on “Predictions about Benedict XVI” made me laugh. The whole time I was praying “Wow! I wish all this WOULD happen!” In particular…

“He will perhaps provoke a schism with “Cardinal” Roger Mahony of Los Angeles to further make people believe that he, Benedict, is an orthodox anti-modernist, the “great Pope” to “save the Church,” and that Mahony and his ilk are liberals and modernists. He will be uncompromisingly against abortion and euthanasia–and the death penalty.”

novusordowatch.org/whattoexpect.htm

 

[maurin]

Actually you and the Orthodox split 500 years prior to the Protestant Reformation. My point is that Sedevacantists Catholics are not reformed in any sense of the word. I seriously doubt that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer, Wesley, etc., etc. would find any of these folks to be Protestant in doctrine. These are folks who believe that they are more ***Catholic ***than the Pope.

I think you have totally missed the point of my post. Reformation has not occurred, whether we are talking of the Orthodox schism, the Luther event, or the sedevacantists.

 

[rr1213]

I think you have totally missed the point of my post. Reformation has not occurred, whether we are talking of the Orthodox schism, the Luther event, or the sedevacantists.

I understand your point. My point is that if you want to call these people schismatics and in error…fine. I suppose they are from the Catholic viewpoint. Protestants also would consider much of what they are saying to be in error but for other reasons…mainly that they are not Protestants in their theology.

 

[gorman64]

It seems like a pastoral issue to reference both ends without making explicit reference to their relative importance.

Canon law changing is hardly a “pastoral issue”. Both Gaudium Et Spes and Humane Vitae emphasize the planning of families…as if it is universal that each and every Catholic family should be planned.

From Pope Pius XII:

Pope Pius XII, Allocution to midwives, October 29, 1951.

The primary end of marriage.

Now, the truth is that matrimony, as an institution of nature, in virtue of the Creator’s will, has not as a primary and intimate end the personal perfection of the married couple but the procreation and upbringing of a new life. The other ends, inasmuch as they are intended by nature, are not equally primary, much less superior to the primary end, but are essentially subordinated to it. This is true of every marriage, even if no offspring result, just as of every eye it can be said that it is destined and formed to see, even if, in abnormal cases arising from special internal or external conditions, it will never be possible to achieve visual perception.

It was precisely to end the uncertainties and deviations which threatened to diffuse errors regarding the scale of values of the purposes of matrimony and of their reciprocal relations, that a few years ago (March 1944), We Ourselves drew up a declaration on the order of those ends, pointing out what the very internal structure of the natural disposition reveals. We showed what has been handed down by Christian tradition, what the Supreme Pontiffs have repeatedly taught, and what was then in due measure promulgated by the Code of Canon Law. Not long afterwards, to correct opposing opinions, the Holy See, by a public decree, proclaimed that it could not admit the opinion of some recent authors who denied that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of the offspring, or teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinated to the primary end, but are on an equal footing and independent of it.

Would this lead, perhaps, to Our denying or diminishing what is good and just in personal values resulting from matrimony and its realization? Certainly not, because the Creator has designed that for the procreation of a new life human beings made of flesh and blood, gifted with soul and heart, shall be called upon as men and not as animals deprived of reason to be the authors of their posterity. It is for this end that the Lord desires the union of husband and wife. Indeed, the Holy Scripture says of God that He created man to His image and He created him male and female, and willed—as is repeatedly affirmed in Holy Writ—that “a man shall leave mother and father, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh”.

All this is therefore true and desired by God. But, on the other hand, it must not be divorced completely from the primary function of matrimony—the procreation of offspring. Not only the common work of external life, but even all personal enrichment—spiritual and intellectual—all that in married love as such is most spiritual and profound, has been placed by the will of the Creator and of nature at the service of posterity. The perfect married life, of its very nature, also signifies the total devotion of parents to the well-being of their children, and married love in its power and tenderness is itself a condition of the sincerest care of the offspring and the guarantee of its realization.

 

[Windmill]

I see your concerns now. Honestly, the Code of Canon Law is not as big a deal as the constant teachings of the previous popes. Canon Law is not timeless. The ordinary Magiterium is. It dose seem that, to a literal historian, Paul VI legally toed the line by not explicitly referencing the subordination of mutual benefit to that of procreation/education. I can see where some may get nervous that his words could be minced to conclude that he was, in fact, equating the two.

I read the relevant passages in Gaudium Et Spes and found no listing of primary and secondary purposes of marraige. This argument from silence cuts both ways, but it does not seem to be a denial, nor a reaffirmation of the previous popes.

Interesting topic, but I don’t believe, for a second, that this proves that our Pope is not a Pope.

 

[JesuXPIPassio]

Dear all Catholics,

After coming across this site here I would like to hear your opinions about Sedevacantism.

Personally myself, I was very shocked to see so many people depart from the current church and become as Protestants (would Catholics class them in the same class now?) - I can only assume what they are talking about is very big to them, even if I don’t understand it fully.

Would love to hear your thoughts on Sedevacantism, Sedevacantists as Protestants (?), and their claims. (kooky or valid?)

Warm Regards,
Rev13_16

Kooky! I’ll tell you a few things about those people.

They believe that the Papacy had been somehow overtaken. See, they say that in 1958, Cardinal Siri had been elected. Siri was a favourite of the conservatives and was considered one of the frontrunners for the Papacy.

Siri of course was not elected, and Angelo Roncalli (the Cardinal-Patriarch of Venice) was elected and chose the name John XXIII.

Now, the sedevacantists claim that Siri was actually really elected, and thus all of God’s graces for the Pope went to him. They claim that somehow Roncalli overtook Siri on the way to be presented to the public. Ergo, Roncalli and all of his successors were invalid.

Silly huh? Cardinal Siri repeatedly denied those claims. Even a look at the facts would see how they’re wrong. See, after the final vote and count are finished, the Swiss Guards oversee who had been elected. You know that “Habemus Papam” speech that one of the Cardinals make? One Swiss Guard actually is required to go with that Cardinal and stand by during the announcement just to make sure he doesn’t announce the wrong person. (My source is The Pope’s Army, a book about the Swiss Guards that came out in 2005 or 2006).

Even from a critical analysis, those claims seems stupid. John XXIII had Cardinals who didn’t totally support him. If the claims are true, why didn’t they speak out?

You’ll see a lot of claims by the Sedevacantists. Just don’t believe them. They also say that the Mass we have now is satanic. Some say that Paul VI was overtaken by an impostor. They provide pictures to try to show this, but they look like the same guy to me. I tried to look at the features of both pictures, and although the Pope aged, it’s definitely the same guy.

SSPX (which is not a Sedevacantist group, but they are a schismatic traditionalist group) is even considered a cult by some governments.

Some Sedevacantists went off to make their own popes. Even weirder. America has at least four that I know of. There are others worldwide.

One guy, in the US named Pope Michael, was elected by people including his parents. Another guy, Pius XIII in Montana, was elected by an unknown number of “Cardinal electors” via telephone. The sad thing is that “Pius XIII” is himself an actual Franciscan priest.

The Pius XIII thing is so pitiful, but I can’t help but laugh. I feel guilty for laughing at the guy and those people, but some of the things they do are just insane.

For example, they insist on keeping their pope’s exact location a secret, because they say he’ll be in danger of being killed if he’s found. You can see their website at truecatholic.org. They even have papal pictures and stuff.

They work so hard at their little group and put so much money and resources into it, but basically all they’re doing is playing dress-up. Kids might do that, but not a guy in his 70s. Their pope has his own cassock and stuff, and those things all cost a lot of money.

I don’t know how we can classify them. Perhaps they’re unclassifiable. But the SSPX group isn’t considered protestants, because they do have actual Apostolic Succession. Their founder, Marcel LeFebvre, was an actual Catholic Archbishop but he was excommunicated for consecrating other bishops without Papal permission.

Those bishops he made are real bishops, and if they consecrate any other bishops, those bishops will be real bishops too. So their group has real Apostolic Succession, their priests and bishops are real priests and bishops, and their Eucharists are real too.

As such, they’re more like Schismatics than protestants. It’s like with the Orthodox – they aren’t Catholic, but they’re not protestant either.

By the way, if you go through a phone directory or a government-published religion directory or something like that, you’ll find that those Sedevacantists advertise themselves as Catholics. It’s confusing to the readers, and unfortunately the local bishops just don’t have any authority over those directories. So, they can’t go up and say, “Hey, these weirdos aren’t Catholic, please change it.”

By the way, SSPX will claim that *none *of their members were excommunicated and they’re still in communion with us, but that’s simply not true, and resources about that can be found everywhere. The Vatican has made clarifications about their case and they say that, yes, those people were excommunicated.

In other words, SSPX is just plain lying.

 

[childofmary1143]

There are problems with Humanae Vitae. Do you understand what happened in the five years of study prior to the issuing of HV?

Also, the ends of marriage were leveled and reversed. Here is a comparison the code of canon law (1917 vs. 1983):

What do you mean when you say that there are problems with Humanae Vitae? I understand that in 1959 the BCP came out and Pope John XXIII had convened a commission to study it. After he died Pope Paul VI had it re commissioned and in 1965 or 1966 they recommended that he approve the BCP. Of course he didn’t and those events alone prove that if Pope Paul VI was a heretic or invalid Pope he would NEVER have written Humanae Vitae.

 

[TNT]

What do you mean when you say that there are problems with Humanae Vitae? I understand that in 1959 the BCP came out and Pope John XXIII had convened a commission to study it. After he died Pope Paul VI had it re commissioned and in 1965 or 1966 they recommended that he approve the BCP. Of course he didn’t and those events alone prove that if Pope Paul VI was a heretic or invalid Pope he would NEVER have written Humanae Vitae.

Why would it REQUIRE advocating BCP to be a heretic??
There are many non-catholics against BCP as well as Katholics for it.
This is really no defense, but an unfounded conclusion, ie a heretic is in favor of BCP.
That’s all.

 

[maurin]

I understand your point. My point is that if you want to call these people schismatics and in error…fine. I suppose they are from the Catholic viewpoint. Protestants also would consider much of what they are saying to be in error but for other reasons…mainly that they are not Protestants in their theology.

Ok, ok…sorry, we have no beef, I hope, with each other. But no, I do not want to call these people schismatics for the reason I have cited: the deformation of the Body of Christ.

After all the root of the word ‘protestant’ is ‘protest,’ no? And are they not protesting the authority of Peter?

Maybe this is not an important distinction, but it is a distinction that is important to me.

 

[rr1213]

Just so you know that they are not in the Protestant tradition. If rejection of papal authority was the only defining attribute of Protestantism, then the Orthodox, the Coptics and the Mormons would be Protestants also. None are.

 

[RobedWithLight]

Actually you and the Orthodox split 500 years prior to the Protestant Reformation. My point is that Sedevacantists Catholics are not reformed in any sense of the word. I seriously doubt that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer, Wesley, etc., etc. would find any of these folks to be Protestant in doctrine. These are folks who believe that they are more ***Catholic ***than the Pope.

Actually, sedevacantists are similar to Protestants in the sense that they fell for the old Protestant methodology of private interpretation, and both groups felt that they knew better than the Pope, though these are from radically different perspectives and motives. In most other aspects, sedevacantists are almost indistinguishable from ordinary devout Catholics, that is, until they start talking about the Papacy, the Mass, and Vatican II.

 

[childofmary1143]

Why would it REQUIRE advocating BCP to be a heretic??
There are many non-catholics against BCP as well as Katholics for it.
This is really no defense, but an unfounded conclusion, ie a heretic is in favor of BCP.
That’s all.

I am not saying that if you are against BCP that means you are a heretic.

Let me rephrase myself: It is my understanding of sedevacantists that See of Peter is vacant and has been since 1958 when Pope John XXIII took to the throne. THEY consider John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and now Benedict XVI as heretics, anti Popes or whatever. In my earlier posts I refuted what they believed by using Humanae Vitae as an example. In the course of making that point I used the term heretic just to shorten how they view our Popes.

 

[RobedWithLight]

Sedevacantism is an impossible position to hold. How can one be Catholic and actually believe that we have no pope? The SSPX has good articles refuting the sedevacantist position. They can be found here.

I agree with you on this score. However, it is also a known fact that historically, sedevacantism is a “child”, figuratively speaking of the Lefebvre schism, just as the SSPV were originally formed by priests who left the SSPX for holding such views.

 

[JesuXPIPassio]

Sedevacantism is an impossible position to hold. How can one be Catholic and actually believe that we have no pope? The SSPX has good articles refuting the sedevacantist position. They can be found here.

I don’t agree with the Traditionalist Sedevacantist claim, but their position has some, more moderate basis in history. Of course, there have been times when we had no Pope. A couple weeks in April 2005, we had no pope.

Sedevacantists, though, claim that it wasn’t just a couple weeks, but rather almost 50 years that we had no pope. It sounds extreme and stupid (which it is), but historically, we once had no pope for two years because they couldn’t come to a consensus. It’s not that far out of the realms of possibility.

Of course, Sedevacantists take it to a far extreme where it truly is dumb and impossible, but those of us who are faithful Catholics should stay rooted in the simple truth that there can and have been times when we had no pope, the longest on record being for two years.

 

[Caesar]

I’m a traditionalist, and believe it or not I was a sedevacantist once too.

For a period of 17 days in 2005