As noted above, popes certainly CAN err in their beliefs and actions, even their writings. But when a pope speaks in unity with an ecumenical council? Not so much.
You merely choose to set the bar incredibly high. Regardless of where you set it, though, the same principle of heresy being endorsed still applies. If a pope convened an ecumenical council and it was agreed that the Virgin Birth was a myth (and only “psychologically” true), you would perhaps consider it a robber council and become a sedevacantist the next day. Admittedly that’s an unlikely example, but surely you can appreciate the essential math:
if a = b, then c. You’d probably consider any subsequent popes concurring with the “Virgin Birth myth” teaching to be Petrine impostors as well.
The only difference between him and the sv is that Luther believed the apostasy happened centuries earlier and the sv think it just happened a few decades ago.
And I must continue to insist: that’s
not the only difference. But
even if it was—it’s a massive difference. It’s the difference between why Luther was forced to found a new religion and why sedevacantists want nothing more than a return to a sensibility that
hasn’t been lost for ages, but was tossed out fairly recently by a cadre of progressive churchmen.
That difference is
not negligible. If anything, it exposes both the megalomania of Luther and the relative propriety of the sedevacantist appeal.
One must therefore prefer the ancient belief to the novel. It is to antiquity and tradition that we must cling, particularly when heresy affects “almost the whole world.”
Again, exactly Luther’s argument.
“
Exactly Luther’s argument? Kindly note that the difference is in the very obvious particulars: Luther (perhaps in his pride) lost sight of the fact that “the ancient faith” had
never been considered as self-contained in a single book. Sedevacantists evince no such similar blinding pride (or resultant innovation), as their “ancient faith” is right where it’s always been: in the dogmatic teachings and the
sensus fidelium of nearly two millennia worth of Christianity.
But you can’t seriously argue that modifying the liturgy to include the use of vernacular language, a priest facing the ‘wrong’ way, musical styles of recent origin and possibly unfortunate choice of words in a few instances amount to the same thing!?!
That’s a nice apologia for the
Novus Ordo, but it doesn’t quite do justice to the facts.
A modification of the liturgy on the scale of what was done after Vatican II is completely without precedent in such a short period of time. Considering that this staggering degree of change came after
four hundred years of a respectful deference to
Quo Primum, it can hardly be seen as “tweaking.” It’s nothing short of an overhaul, and precisely the kind of overhaul that was strongly advised against at the Council of Trent and in
QP. Trent solemnly anathematized all-vernacular Masses and the recitation of the Canon in a loud voice—the mind reels at why a Catholic pope would promulgate a liturgy containing these very errors, which the Tridentine Fathers said were “in opposition to the ancient faith.”
What’s equally as damning is the fact that the liturgical changes made after Vatican II mirror the original Protestant blueprint of Thomas Cranmer. The Offertory prayers alluding to the “true and proper” sacrifice are gone. The altar is stationed in middle of the sanctuary, looking for all the world like the Protestant table. As Cranmer himself noted: “an altar is for a sacrifice, and a table is for a meal.” (Not for nothing do Anglicans call their service “the Lord’s Supper.”) Mimicking Cranmer’s design, the
Novus Ordo has all the symbolic trappings of a communal banquet, and is entirely bereft of symbolic pointers to the mystical sacrifice. Joseph Campbell, possibly one of the foremost writers on comparative religion in the 20th century, once quipped that the
Novus Ordo “resembles a Julia Child demonstration” more than it does a sacred ritual.
Your mention of a “possibly unfortunate choice of words” doubtless pertains to the controversy over the substitution of “all” for “many” in the formula. Indeed, the sedevacantist position is that this change does
not effect a valid sacrament, and I could explain why in the event that you’re perhaps unfamiliar with the relevant sacramental theology.
The rule in catholicism is that the magisterium interprets Sacred Tradition. Some times that will include clarifications that startle people or new definitions that show that some things previously presumed to be dogma weren’t really ever clearly defined that way at all.
As Lord Halifax was insightful enough to point out: “the vanity of teaching often tempts a man to forget that he is a blockhead.” The ecclesial office is not above the faith. The Magisterium may clarify, but it can never innovate. To that end, the hierarchy has stewardship of the Mass, but it cannot overhaul the liturgy at whim, especially not in such a manner that would strip it of its Catholicity and have it resemble the Protestant service anathematized at Trent.
Perhaps you’d like to toss out some examples (in context please) in Vatican II that “prove” it and popes that embrace it are heretical?
I would, but first let me concede that the documents of Vatican II make up a difficult beast to pin down. I don’t think the problem with them is so much outright heresy as it is troublesome ambiguity. For the time being, might we stick to a discussion of Paul VI’s promulgation of the
Novus Ordo Missae marking the alleged heresy?
(sorry couldn’t resist)
