Invalidity of Mass according to sedevacantists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter OrbisNonSufficit
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

OrbisNonSufficit

Guest
Alright, while I do not hold view that OF can be invalid because it is “modernist” or because of poor catechesis of the Priest celebrating it, some traditionalists do and I don’t quite understand the idea.

Even if sedevacantists of utmost radicality were right and Vatican 2 was not valid (again, I don’t hold view it is, I’m just stating this for sake of argument), why would Novus Ordo ever be invalid? After all, Mass does not have to be approved by Church to be valid- take look at some groups who were in schism historically. Many forms of Liturgies developed in communities with valid Apostolic succession, Priesthood and sacraments and some were not even approved by Catholic Church- yet historically, we regard them as valid. Why would Novus Ordo ever be an exception? What is the logic behind that? Even heresies did not invalidate Liturgies, as we see with Nestorian Churches. Only heresy to invalidate Mass would be one of denying Holy Trinity, or one denying Sacraments- particularly Eucharist (reasons why Protestants do not have valid Liturgies, or one of them). As long as valid Priesthood is present (which again, Novus Ordo Vatican 2 Catholic Church surely does have even according to most extreme traditionalists), there is no valid basis for Mass to be simply invalid and hence Eucharist not really present.

There is also no basis on why would heresy of Modernism do away with valid Priesthood (as generally Vatican 2 does not change anything about understanding of Priesthood) and no basis on why it would do away with valid understanding of Eucharist or Triune God- especially in sense Vatican 2 is accused of. I find every argument for invalidity of NO being simply false leap of logic, but I never had a chance to talk to someone more educated about this matter. Does anyone know why do Sedevacantists or similar groups reject validity of Sacrament of Eucharist in current form of Mass, or how do they justify it even with above things in mind?
 
Last edited:
OrbisNonSufficit said:
There is also no basis on why would heresy of Modernism do away with valid Priesthood (as generally Vatican 2 does not change anything about understanding of Priesthood)
Click to expand...
Their argument usually is that since the rite of ordination was changed until Paul VI, it’s no longer valid. (Note that I do not hold this view.)
 
gracepoole said:
Their argument usually is that since the rite of ordination was changed until Paul VI, it’s no longer valid. (Note that I do not hold this view.)
Click to expand...
And the removal of the Mysterium Fidei from the words of consecration and making it what it is now in the OF.
 
Which, I might add, holds no merit at all, considering many of the Eastern-Rite liturgies do not contain the Mysterium Fidei in the words of Consecration.
 
Since sedevacantists do not regard any single current magisterium as currently authoritative, they don’t necessarily need to have the same position, on anything.

There are different organizations, and individuals may have varying views.
Sure they all cite “Tradition”, but John can cite this document from Pius 12, and Joe can say no, that other document from Pius 11 is relevant here.
 
I wish somebody would change the title of the thread. I mean, it is not 'invalidity according to traditionalists" it is INVALIDITY ACCORDING TO SEDEVACANTISTS. Let’s be honest here.

Sedevacantists, IMO, have been given the label of traditionalists partly to smear people who are perfectly Catholic and, as Catholics, also happen to enjoy perfectly Catholic worship styles, devotions, writings, art, etc. which had been prominent prior to Vatican 2 but had been in many places superseded by a more modern Catholic worship style with newer devotions, practices, music, art, etc.

Think: LOTH, litanies, rogation and ember days, chant, lots of stained glass and incense, TLM as ‘tradition’; think Divine Mercy, guitar OF, Lifeteen, felt banners and ‘simple’ interiors as modern.

There is nothing wrong with any of the above, and you have plenty of people who like all the modern and maybe like the LOTH too, as well as people who like all the tradition but also the Divine Mercy; people can like some, much, or all of either or both styles.

But the people who like traditional things are not any more likely to be sedevacantist ‘because tradition’ than Catholics who like modern things.

The sedevacantist only likes some (not all, and usually an extremely narrow bit too, and a narrow ‘European’ style tradition to boot) traditional Catholic things because he thinks they support his rejection and justify it. He’s not a traditional Catholic, he’s a protestant.
 
stpurl said:
I wish somebody would change the title of the thread. I mean, it is not 'invalidity according to traditionalists" it is INVALIDITY ACCORDING TO SEDEVACANTISTS. Let’s be honest here.
Click to expand...
Alright, done. Point taken.
stpurl said:
Sedevacantists, IMO, have been given the label of traditionalists partly to smear people who are perfectly Catholic and, as Catholics, also happen to enjoy perfectly Catholic worship styles, devotions, writings, art, etc. which had been prominent prior to Vatican 2 but had been in many places superseded by a more modern Catholic worship style with newer devotions, practices, music, art, etc.
Click to expand...
I mostly use “traditional” for people in communion with Church and “traditionalist” for those who left it, but my terminology is probably off. Point is, there are more schismatic groups- sedeimpedists, conclavists, mysticalists… I am unsure how to label them all together with sedevacantists and be clear that I am excluding people faithful to the Church who enjoy pre-Vatican 2 spirituality, which is completely legitimate and worthy of respect. Anyway, title should fit better now.
 
gracepoole said:
Their argument usually is that since the rite of ordination was changed until Paul VI, it’s no longer valid. (Note that I do not hold this view.)
Click to expand...
I see, I thought Mass was perceived as invalid because of it being invalid… I thought that perception of priesthood being invalid was just another step, not cause for it.
Fauken said:
And the removal of the Mysterium Fidei from the words of consecration and making it what it is now in the OF.
Click to expand...
ioannes_pius said:
Which, I might add, holds no merit at all, considering many of the Eastern-Rite liturgies do not contain the Mysterium Fidei in the words of Consecration.
Click to expand...
Right after I posted this, I looked up ordination of Bishops according to Eastern Rite and checked if sedevacantist arguments on ordination of Bishops being invalid actually hold any merit if we include Eastern Rite in the equation. I actually believe most sedevacantist positions can be disproved simply by considering Eastern Rites valid as they were considered valid pre-V2.

I agree with everything you’ve said. I mainly posted this thread because I had conversation with my fellow Catholic friend, and he said that even in extreme situation where sedevacantists/impedists were right, our sacraments are still all valid- which brought me tell me about them disputing invalidity of OF, to which he said it does not make sense. I actually realized it can not make sense legitimately and hence tried to find out if I did not miss any way how it could be justified even under their impressions.
 
What it is is a kind of rationalization. They realize that in order to be Catholic you have to be in communion with the Pope. However, since they don’t want to be in communion with the Pope then there has to be a reason. If I tell myself that there is no Pope then I can continue to do whatever.
 
OddBird said:
I am curious – what would be an exemple of such a situation ?
Click to expand...
Hm, not sure about that. I guess if freemasons really did control election of Blessed Pope John XXIII and blocked election of Cardinal Siri as Pope Gregory XVII (I do not believe they did, though) and contrary to sedeimpedist claims he did not say “then elect a new Pope” which is clearly giving up his office, there would be either no Pope or different Pope than we perceive. Also, if sedevacantists were somehow right and freemasons did becomes Popes (again, not something I believe) and were right that they can not hold office (something I am not sure about) of the Pope, it could theoretically with a giant stretch and leap be true…

…even in that situation, sedes are just wrong. It just proves that even if you concede to what is extremely unlikely almost to the point of being impossible, it still does not prove their position. Just shows how futile it is to try and prove their points.
 
Last edited:
poche said:
If I tell myself that there is no Pope then I can continue to do whatever.
Click to expand...
True. Persons who claimed Sola Scriptura didn’t really abolish the pope, they make themselves pope.
Likewise, sedevacantists put themselves in the Pope’s place, interpreting Tradition but in isolation.

Catholicism is based on a three leg stool: Scripture, sacred Tradition, and Living Magisterium. Yes we all should study and interpret Scripture and Tradition, but then be guided by the living Magisterium.

There is a compromise position, let’s call it “semi sede”. This means "yes, Francis is technically a pope, as are others since 1958. But these popes are not authoritative, like Popes prior to 1958.
 
Last edited:
Maybe the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople since he was traditionally the second seat after Rome in honor.

By the way I’m being sarcastic. That is just how ridiculous their claim is though.
 
Last edited:
Read Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae.

It provides an example of ho valid bishops can establish an invalid mass and ordinations. The similarity of the Vatican II changes and the Anglican reformation era changes practically demands an examination.
 
Dovekin said:
The similarity of the Vatican II changes and the Anglican reformation era changes practically demands an examination.
Click to expand...
Is that so? I thought Apostolicae Curae actually referred to reason being their wrong understanding of sacraments and role of priesthood. This is why they lost their ordinations. Vatican 2 did not change anything of the sort.
 
Both reforms removed a lot of sacrificial language. That is the basis for saying their view of the sacraments had changed. I think there is even an argument that it was the change of language, not the language itseld.

I am just just offering this as an example of finding sacraments as invalid, similar to the arguments made by sedevacantists
 
I am not a sede and I believe we have had valid Popes through the last few decades (and of course before) BUT I do need, I think, to remind people of “the Avignon captivity”.

For a period of virtually a lifetime, about 70 years, the people in Europe (which was essentially the whole Latin-rite Catholic world at the time) had a period where there were at least two and sometimes three rival claimants to the papacy. What happened was that politically a country or city-state would support Claimant A, while the countries with whom they normally had opposition would then support Claimant B. Add to this the Avignon situation (where the popes left Rome, which was ‘unsafe’ for them, and ruled from Avignon, in France, which of course often led to the popes being Frenchmen, AND to various things submitted for the papal approval such as treaties tending to, well, favor the French king, and you get a lot of upset and people genuinely not knowing WHO the real Pope was. Not exactly the sede problem of today, but definitely shows that in Catholic history we have had problems in knowing exactly who sat on the papal throne, and depending on one’s country of origin and due to the lack of things like the Internet etc., very limited ability for the serf on somebody’s fief to have a chance to make a truly informed judgment.
 
Dovekin said:
Read Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae .

It provides an example of ho valid bishops can establish an invalid mass and ordinations. The similarity of the Vatican II changes and the Anglican reformation era changes practically demands an examination.
Click to expand...
“Both reforms removed a lot of sacrificial language. That is the basis for saying their view of the sacraments had changed. I think there is even an argument that it was the change of language, not the language itself”.

End prior posts

@GKMotley

I can’t see any logic here for the sede position. The bishops who elected St John 23, and voted the changes at V2, and elected Paul 6, would have been validly and licitly consecrated, in sede view. To argue otherwise is to question everything Pius 12 did, which only a few sede would do.

The Anglicans had bishops who were likely excommunicated, making changes with no papal or ecumenical council sanction. So this isn’t just comparing “apples and oranges”, it’s like comparing apples and cannon balls.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top