Invalidity of Mass according to sedevacantists?

[SeraficLeo]

But as Catholics we of course know and believe that the Church alone defines with divine authority what is and what is not a heresy. So I would feel compelled to ask a sedevacantist which heresies Vatican II is guilty of.

Most arguments from sedevacantists I see at best have them arguing from positive doctrinal or dogmatic statements made by the Magisterium to then arguing a contradiction from something taught or promulgated by the Magisterium during or after the Second Vatican Council; and while that certainly can be compelling - at least so far as the argument is - it still falls to one’s own private judgment (and authority) ultimately to determine or decide.

 

[Bataar]

But as Catholics we of course know and believe that the Church alone defines with divine authority what is and what is not a heresy. So I would feel compelled to ask a sedevacantist which heresies Vatican II is guilty of.

Most arguments from sedevacantists I see at best have them arguing from positive doctrinal or dogmatic statements made by the Magisterium to then arguing a contradiction from something taught or promulgated by the Magisterium during or after the Second Vatican Council; and while that certainly can be compelling - at least so far as the argument is - it still falls to one’s own private judgment (and authority) ultimately to determine or decide.

Here is a good article that lists and explains their arguments. This focuses on Vatican II documents, not the Mass itself.

https://holyromancatholicchurch.org/heresies.html

 

[SeraficLeo]

Yes and like I said they make arguments. This part is funny from the first attempt in light of what I posted above:

Almost the only label that Pope Pius IX does not attach to this doctrine is in fact that of “heresy”, but…

“But…” and an argument follows.

The very next alleged “heresy” of the Second Vatican Council is made completely by way of an argument. The author doesn’t even appear to realize only the Magisterium can define and determine heresies. The opinion of theologians certainly do not cause something to be definite heresy nor give them the right to judge someone a heretic or guilty of heresy.

It’s all a massive mini-Magisterium in the author’s head. It would take days to write a response with all the problems in that article, but the most glaring one is the assumption that anyone can authoritatively define/determine a heresy or authoritatively judge something or someone to be heretical or a heretic.

 

[commenter]

Protestants believe in private interpretation of Scripture and Tradition, as opposed to the Catholic understanding, which includes the current, living Magisterium.

The source you referred to is in effect Protestant.

 

[Bataar]

Protestants believe in private interpretation of Scripture and Tradition, as opposed to the Catholic understanding, which includes the current, living Magisterium.

The source you referred to is in effect Protestant.

Not even the Magisterium can promote teachings that contradict church doctrine, however, as the church cannot change. If the church teaches one thing, and a bishop, cardinal, or pope comes along and teaches something contrary to that, it is heresy. The article I posted illustrates times sedevacantists claim this was done in regards to Vatican II.

For example, the article sites the following quote from Vatican II:
“The separated churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fulness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” ( Decree on Oecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio , paragraph 3)

This seems to directly contradict this previous church teaching from Pope Eugene IV from the Council of Florence:
"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the Devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with her… "

If the teaching of Pope Eugene IV is true, and we have to believe that it is, than the teaching from Vatican II must be false as the original teaching cannot change as it was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Dovekin]

This seems to directly contradict…

Seems to. But does it?

Apparently, this statement was issued in 1443ad, in the midst of negotiating a reunion with our Orthodox brothers and sisters. That reunion was accomplished by 1447ad.

How does your understanding of the quote fit with those facts? I don’t know. I am just trying to get the context of the remarks. Does it eally contradict the Decree on Ecumenism?

So we have to consider the alternative. If the teaching from Vatican II is true, then our understanding of Eugene IV is wrong.

 

[commenter]

What authority does the the author of the article have? He may say it is not based on him personally, but just the authority of Tradition… except that Pope Francis and his bishop and bishops at V2 have access to the same documents he cited. They interpret Tradition differenty from the author. So really it it is not “Tradition” speaking, but just this author of this article interpreting Tradition. Just as Sola Scriptura folks vary widely from each other, do do Sola Traditio folks.

The problem with Sola Scriptura is that people fixate on certain verses, always taken out of context. They have blinders on for hundreds of other verses.

The problem with sola Traditio folks is not the few documents they cite, out of context but the countless documents, the 99 percent of Tradition, they omit. Without the living Magisterium the Sola Traditio folks contradict each other, just like the Sola Scriptura guys.

 

[CradleRC58]

Sede clergy omit the “una cum” in the Te Igitur, which is the first prayer of the Canon.

They condemn omitting prayers of the Tridentine Mass per the OF, but then do it themselves.

Hypocrisy is not a virtue.

 

[Rob2]

Are there Catholics who seriously say that the Masses pictured below are invalid ?

Pope Saint Paul VI

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Pope John Paul I

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Pope Saint John Paul II

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Pope Benedict XVI

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Pope Francis

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Fauken]

Are there Catholics who seriously say that the Masses pictured below are invalid ?

Yup. And showing those pictures means nothing to them, since to them, all of those men are not/ have never been the Pope.

 

[poche]

The mass is infinite. It is a sacrifice but it also includes an assembly of the faithful.

 

[Bataar]

Sede clergy omit the “una cum” in the Te Igitur, which is the first prayer of the Canon.

They condemn omitting prayers of the Tridentine Mass per the OF, but then do it themselves.

Hypocrisy is not a virtue.

The Una Cum can’t be said if there is no pope. The entire purpose of the prayer is to state you’re offering the Mass in union with the pope. If there’s no pope, you can’t offer the mass in union with him.

 

[Bataar]

The mass is infinite. It is a sacrifice but it also includes an assembly of the faithful.

But the new Mass completely changes the focus from the sacrifice to the assembly. It even claims that Christ is just as present in the assembly as he is in the Eucharist.

 

[HopkinsReb]

poche:

The mass is infinite. It is a sacrifice but it also includes an assembly of the faithful.

But the new Mass completely changes the focus from the sacrifice to the assembly. It even claims that Christ is just as present in the assembly as he is in the Eucharist.

I guess that bit about “whenever two or three gather in my name, I am with them” was just so many words?

 

[Bataar]

Bataar:

poche:

The mass is infinite. It is a sacrifice but it also includes an assembly of the faithful.

But the new Mass completely changes the focus from the sacrifice to the assembly. It even claims that Christ is just as present in the assembly as he is in the Eucharist.

I guess that bit about “whenever two or three gather in my name, I am with them” was just so many words?

No, Jesus is there, but not physically. If that were the case, a priest would not be required at all. Jesus is physically present, body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist. That is not the case when two or three are gathered in his name.

 

[HopkinsReb]

No, Jesus is there, but not physically. If that were the case, a priest would not be required at all. Jesus is physically present, body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist. That is not the case when two or three are gathered in his name.

You didn’t say “physically” in the post to which I responded.

Lack of physical presence does not mean His presence in the assembly is somehow inferior. It is different, to be sure, but quite important.

 

[poche]

Jesus is present in the assembly. He Himself said, where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them. However when the assembly disperses, so does Jesus real presence leave. With the Eucharist, when the mass is over, Jesus real presence remains in the Eucharistic species.

 

[Bataar]

Jesus is present in the assembly. He Himself said, where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them. However when the assembly disperses, so does Jesus real presence leave. With the Eucharist, when the mass is over, Jesus real presence remains in the Eucharistic species.

When two or more are gathered in His name, Jesus is spiritually present. There’s a huge difference between a spiritual presence and a physical presence. Obviously, they are both good, but to say that Jesus is just as present in the assembly as he is in the Eucharist is false.

 

[commenter]

Lack of physical presence does not mean His presence in the assembly is somehow inferior. It is different, to be sure, but quite important.

It could be “quite important” yet still inferior to the Eucharistic presence.

 

[thistle]

That is part of another movement referred to as the “Resistance.” They recognize that Pope Francis is the Pope, but they don’t obey him.

That would be SSPX!