Is there a difference between a traidional catholic and a sedevacantist?

[tdgesq]

If you haven’t done so already, attend a Mass in the “Ordinary Form.” By the end of it (or possibly before), you’ll have your answer. You’re free (and are likely) to reject my position, but I’m afraid that’s the best signifier of “difference” that I can offer you.

I guess I’m not following. I do reject your position, but not because I find the N.O. particularly attractive. I reject it because differences in liturgical language and form don’t tell me why I should conclude the Chair of St. Peter is vacant.

I’m pretty sure the Nicene Creed wasn’t widely recited prior to . . . well . . . the Council of Nicaea. The Mass of the Apostles would look quite different from any Mass in existence today, it being in Latin and all. That is another thing. What about the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Catholics? It seems to me that differences in liturgy is not a reasonable basis for your conclusion.

 

[Yggdrasil]

I guess I’m not following. I do reject your position, but not because I find the N.O. particularly attractive. I reject it because differences in liturgical language and form don’t tell me why I should conclude the Chair of St. Peter is vacant.

If the differences are of an order where one form copies heretical innovations, removes the pertinent references to the true and mystical sacrifice, and has a sacramental form that qualifies as ineffectual according to St. Pius V’s De Defectibus, then you have grounds for supposing that the pope who promulgated it (and the successive popes who endorsed it) are—at the very least—doubtful (if not illegitimate).

I’m pretty sure the Nicene Creed wasn’t widely recited prior to . . . well . . . the Council of Nicaea. The Mass of the Apostles would look quite different from any Mass in existence today, it being in Latin and all. That is another thing.

Well, that would all be part of the natural growth and development of the Mass. No one is claiming that the Tridentine Missal fell out of the sky on Pentecost. The problem is that the development of the liturgy had always been more or less slow and careful—a new oration included here, a small bit of pruning there. And after a time, the retention of the early languages became the universal practice in Christianity (both East and West). I’m sure you don’t need a lesson on the history of the Mass. At any rate, there is no precedent at all for the scope and manner of the changes made in the Novus Ordo. That’s not natural development—it’s the living definition of ruination by committee.

What about the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Catholics?

What about it? It’s a liturgy of great antiquity and splendor. The Eastern Catholic churches are “autonomous of rite,” so theoretically they’re allowed to introduce changes or modifications as part of the organic growth of their liturgy (although the Byzantines have a reputation for being obsessively cautious as far as that goes). My ken on this matter is admittedly limited, but I’m not aware that the Eastern Catholics have yet an “Ordinary Form” that looks like the identical twin of a Protestant service.

It seems to me that differences in liturgy is not a reasonable basis for your conclusion.

Then allow me to clarify. Liturgical diversity per se is not the problem—even our Western Church enjoyed a healthy variety of rites prior to the Council of Trent. The reason that the Roman Rite was codified and made the universal standard in perpetuity was because the Protestant liturgical innovations were a threat to the faith, and there was a serious danger of the Protestant errors seeping in. “Many things,” said the Tridentine Fathers, “seem already to have crept in that are foreign to the dignity of so great a sacrifice.” What happened with the Novus Ordo was just that—and it wasn’t just a few bits here and there that made the cut. The Protestant design was taken up almost in its entirety.

It’s that kind of difference that makes all the difference in the world. Hopefully that might satisfy you as a “reasonable basis.” If this kind of heresy is merely in the eye of the beholder, then who am I to change your mind?

 

[Perplexity]

If I might jump in, i’d like to add two cents to possibly illuminate the discussion for its betterment.

In the years that i’ve studied sedevacantism, I have noticed that there are two categorically different discussions that take place on this one subject.

The first discussion studies whether the theological, canonical and historical principles invoked by sedevacantist’s is representative of authentic Magisterial teaching.

The second discussion accepts that sedevacantist’s do in fact utilize authentic Catholic principles, but studies whether we are currently in the state of sede-vacante, that is by applying the accepted principles, is the result sede-vacante?

The second type of discussion is especially relevant to the current thread because it involves the argument that sedevacantism does not negate the truth of Roman Catholicism. That is, if sedevacantism were true, currently, then it would simply entail the rejection of 40 years of non-Catholic teaching and practice. The gates of hell would not have prevailed, and the Church would remain indefectible and infallible.

This is unlike schismatic/heretical Greek Orthodox churches, or Protestant sects. For example, if we were to assume Calvinist’s were correct in their theology, it would entail the demise of the Roman Catholic Church. The same goes for any non-Catholic sect. However, if we assume the sedevacantist’s are correct, the Church is preserved.

I hope these points help the discussion.

God bless

 

[tdgesq]

Hopefully that might satisfy you as a “reasonable basis.” If this kind of heresy is merely in the eye of the beholder, then who am I to change your mind?

So far I’ve only seen an objection to the liturgy. Now that you claim the N.O. does contain heretical elements, you need to demonstrate what they are. My mind can be changed, but only by evidence. Time to put it out there.

 

[gentle_atheist]

However, if we assume the sedevacantist’s are correct, the Church is preserved.

But where is the Church preserved? The problem is not just with the Pope but with the entire Magisterium. And if every pope since John XXIII is a heretic, how many validly ordained bishops could you even find in the Catholic Church today?

 

[Perplexity]

But where is the Church preserved? The problem is not just with the Pope but with the entire Magisterium. And if every pope since John XXIII is a heretic, how many validly ordained bishops could you even find in the Catholic Church today?

The Church is simply the mystical society of individuals who have been validly baptized, profess to believe all Church teaching, and who are united under and to the same hierarchy. I say mystical because the Holy Spirit is the Soul of this Body, and unties all of the members to one another. Therefore the Church is these individuals, and so long as they exist the Church exists.

The Magisterium is simply the teaching office of the Church existing in the ordinary and universal and ordinary (Encyclicals, General audiences, allocutions, homilies, catechisms, liturgy, canon law) and the extraordinary (General Councils, Ex Cathedra statements). So long as there are valid Bishops with supplied jurisdiction the Magisterium continues in existence.

I don’t think the issue is “how many validly ordained bishops could you even find in the Catholic Church today,” because valid form, matter and intent are not hard to varify among traditionalist clergy. The big issue is licity, whether they can licitly perform sacraments, and whether we as lay faithful can licitly recieve from them.

God bless

 

[whatischarity]

At the start of my unfortunate 30 year time as a sedevacantist, the main argument presented was that the Novus Ordo changes the words of consecration of the wine in such a way that the meaning is distorted thus resulting in no consecration and no Mass. The words were changed from (if memory serves) for "This is my blood of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which will be shed for you and for many for the remission of sin. " The words “for many” were changed to “for all.”

The people who influenced me claimed that this was a radical change in that it meant that all were saved regardless of whether they were members of the church or not. I remember someting called the “Res Sacramenti” being mentioned. The complaint was that Vatican II brought in a false ecumenism in which the Satan successfully destroyed the Church by having its leaders state that all men are saved.

I also remember a lot of talk about how the Novus Ordo is no longer a sacrifice but rather a meal “like the Protestants”. They really pounded that one since there is a table instead of an altar. It wasn’t until I opened my mind a bit and went to the Novus Ordo that I discovered the theme of sacrifice is still prevelent.

 

[gentle_atheist]

The Magisterium is simply the teaching office of the Church existing in the ordinary and universal and ordinary (Encyclicals, General audiences, allocutions, homilies, catechisms, liturgy, canon law) and the extraordinary (General Councils, Ex Cathedra statements). So long as there are valid Bishops with supplied jurisdiction the Magisterium continues in existence.

When I said “Magisterium” I was referring to the current pope and all the bishops he regards as being in communion with him. As you probably know, Paul VI changed the Sacrament of Holy Orders in 1968. If Paul VI was not really the pope and was a heretic then the new sacrament of Holy Orders promulgated by him is invalid. That means that every “priest” ordained under the new rite is not really a priest. And every “bishop” consecrated under the new rite is not really a bishop.

Ratzinger was ordained a priest in 1951. But he was consecrated a “bishop” in 1977 under the new rite. Is he really a bishop?

I don’t think the issue is “how many validly ordained bishops could you even find in the Catholic Church today,” because valid form, matter and intent are not hard to varify among traditionalist clergy.

I agree that it is easy to verify who was consecrated under the old rite versus who was consecrated under the new rite. The difficulty is not with verification but with age. It’s been over 40 years since the new rite was imposed. How many bishops are alive today who were consecrated under the old rite? Aside from the 4 bishops in the SSPX, who’s left?

The big issue is licity, whether they can licitly perform sacraments, and whether we as lay faithful can licitly recieve from them.

If you believe that the Chair of Peter has been vacant for over 40 years and that therefore all of the changes made in the mass and sacraments have been imposed by non-pope heretics then you must believe that the only place the Catholic Church exists today is in groups like the SSPX, SSPV, and CMRI.

I sympathize with the plight of traditionalists. But I don’t think that sedevacantism is the answer. I think that I found the answer and, sadly, I don’t like the answer one bit.

 

[gentle_atheist]

At the start of my unfortunate 30 year time as a sedevacantist, the main argument presented was that the Novus Ordo changes the words of consecration of the wine in such a way that the meaning is distorted thus resulting in no consecration and no Mass. The words were changed from (if memory serves) for "This is my blood of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which will be shed for you and for many for the remission of sin. " The words “for many” were changed to “for all.”

The people who influenced me claimed that this was a radical change in that it meant that all were saved regardless of whether they were members of the church or not. I remember someting called the “Res Sacramenti” being mentioned. The complaint was that Vatican II brought in a false ecumenism in which the Satan successfully destroyed the Church by having its leaders state that all men are saved.

I also remember a lot of talk about how the Novus Ordo is no longer a sacrifice but rather a meal “like the Protestants”. They really pounded that one since there is a table instead of an altar. It wasn’t until I opened my mind a bit and went to the Novus Ordo that I discovered the theme of sacrifice is still prevelent.

I think that the New Mass can be interpreted in a Protestant way as well as in a Catholic way. And I think that that was the intent: design a mass that is acceptable to both Catholics and Protestants.

What always bothered me was something that nobody ever mentions: the memorial acclamation, which comes right after the consecration. “Let us proclaim the mystery of faith.”

As a Catholic there is only one possible answer: “What had been bread is now the body of Christ. What had been wine is now the blood of Christ.” But none of the responses even hint at the Catholic dogma of transubstantiation. Why? Because Protestants would be offended.

Instead we respond with, “Christ has died. Christ has risen. Christ will come again.” Or with some other generically Christian response that would please any Southern Baptist. Ugghhh!!!

 

[Perplexity]

When I said “Magisterium” I was referring to the current pope and all the bishops he regards as being in communion with him. As you probably know, Paul VI changed the Sacrament of Holy Orders in 1968.

Ok, I see what you mean. If you grant that the 1968 form is invalid in accord with sacramentum ordinis, then it follows that Paul VI was necessarily an illegitimate Pontiff by 1968.

If Paul VI was not really the pope and was a heretic then the new sacrament of Holy Orders promulgated by him is invalid. That means that every “priest” ordained under the new rite is not really a priest. And every “bishop” consecrated under the new rite is not really a bishop.

I agree with you, but I want to point out something to clarify the argument against the 1968form. That is, it would not follow that the validity of the sacrament depends on the legitimacy of Paul VI’s Papacy. That is, Paul VI’s legitmacy as Pontiff, and the validity of his sacrament of holy orders aren’t causally related such that the latter’s validity depends upon the former’s legitimacy. This argument is only used against Paul VI’s Papacy by some, the argument in and of itself simply seeks to demonstrate the sacrament is invalid.

Ratzinger was ordained a priest in 1951. But he was consecrated a “bishop” in 1977 under the new rite. Is he really a bishop?

According to this argument he couldn’t be.

I agree that it is easy to verify who was consecrated under the old rite versus who was consecrated under the new rite. The difficulty is not with verification but with age. It’s been over 40 years since the new rite was imposed. How many bishops are alive today who were consecrated under the old rite? Aside from the 4 bishops in the SSPX, who’s left?

Assuming the sede’s are correct:

I see your point, however so long as there are traditionalist Bishops, the Episcopacy and the Priesthood will continue to exist. The fact that the majority of individuals recognized as valid clergy would not be actual clergy doesn’t negate the fact that there are many traditionalist Bishops who will continue to ordain until Christ assists us.

If you believe that the Chair of Peter has been vacant for over 40 years and that therefore all of the changes made in the mass and sacraments have been imposed by non-pope heretics then you must believe that the only place the Catholic Church exists today is in groups like the SSPX, SSPV, and CMRI.

Assuming the sede’s are correct:

Well as far as actual members of the Church, you’re correct because only the individuals in these groups profess to believe Catholic Church teaching, and are not united to invalid clergy.

I sympathize with the plight of traditionalists. But I don’t think that sedevacantism is the answer. I think that I found the answer and, sadly, I don’t like the answer one bit.

If I judged correctly by your name, is atheism your answer?

God bless

 

[gentle_atheist]

If I judged correctly by your name, is atheism your answer?

Yes. Without God everything makes sense.

 

[Yggdrasil]

So far I’ve only seen an objection to the liturgy. Now that you claim the N.O. does contain heretical elements, you need to demonstrate what they are. My mind can be changed, but only by evidence. Time to put it out there.

Well, I thought I gave a suitable (albeit brief) demonstration in my earlier reply to manualman. If you require a greater intricacy of detail, then it’s possible that we’ll need a new thread. And if you insist that the Novus Ordo be deconstructed into a scattering of many individual elements, then I can all but guarantee that we’re going get lost in a labyrinth of tangential arguments.

It’s important to consider the Mass as an integrated whole, and not just an assembly of “parts.” The problem with identifying “heretical elements” is that we’re likely to lose the big picture in the dissection. Many of these elements can seem almost sanguine on their own. Three points, as examples:

1. 
   *]THE USE OF THE VERNACULAR. This is cannot be “heretical,” obviously, because using the vernacular was the universal practice in the early Church, and of course it doesn’t implicitly deny any doctrine. But the use of a sacred language has been so instrumental in preserving the intregrity of the prayers, and so valuable in pointing symbolically to the transcendent nature of the mysteries at Mass, that almost every Christian tradition has taken to preserving the practice. For this reason Trent anathematized the notion that the Mass should be “in the vernacular only.” The Tridentine Fathers were so opposed to the idea of a vernacular-only liturgy that they instead provided for the allowance of occasional “catechetical” Masses, where the proceedings would be in Latin accompanied by intermittent explanations by the celebrant. It sounds a little queer, sure, but it’s a better alternative to the chaos that has resulted from the Novus Ordo. For everyone who complains that they “don’t understand what’s going on!” in the Latin liturgy, attendance once a year at a “Mass explained” might serve as a curative.
   
   So the vernacular is not heretical in the strict sense of the word, but it certainly serves to rationalize and de-mystify the Mass, especially in an age when discursive thought is the enemy of contemplation. The fact that it was ditched by the Church in the Novus Ordo shows a rupture from tradition, a disregard for the teachings of Trent, and a flagrant violation of Quo Primum. When things like this begin to build up into a liturgy that resembles the work of the Reformers Luther and Cranmer, the notion of “heresy” is inescapable once things have reached a point of critical mass (no pun intended).
   
   *]THE MEMORIAL ACCLAMATION, which gentle atheist remarked on earlier. This three-line poem, “Christ has died / Christ is Risen / Christ will come again” is in no way heretical. It’s a perfectly sound Christological summary, but it is rather out of place in a moment when Christ is supposed to be truly present on the altar. It only contributes to an ambiguous understanding of the True Presence in the Eucharist, which has (not surprisingly) become epidemic in the decades following the promulgation of the new rite. So it’s not a “heretical” element in and of itself, really, but the injudicious insertion of it has doubtless contributed to some obvious heresy among the faithful: when North American Catholics were polled on their understanding of the Eucharist in 1992, three-fourths of them had “it’s symbolic of Christ” (or certain other Protestant formulations) in mind.
   
   *]THE DELETIONS IN THE OFFERTORY PRAYERS. As the Eastern liturgies prove by their very existence, the Offertory petitions in the Roman Rite are not the only ones necessary for a holy Mass. But the prayers in the Tridentine Missal contribute to the sum of its parts, and two important prayers in the Offertory (the Suscipe sancte Pater and Deus qui humanae) are pretty crucial in framing the notion of “the true and proper sacrifice” of the Mass. These were removed (we can only wonder why) in the Novus Ordo. In fact, ten of the twelve Tridentine Offertory prayers were fully excised. It’s strange enough that the Offertory would be eviscerated in such a way (it’s not as if they were replaced with other similar prayers), but things get extremely suspicious when one notices that the same ten petitions were removed by Thomas Cranmer, who denied the mystical sacrifice of the Mass and called transubstantiation a “superstition.” Luther as well hated the Roman Offertory, calling it an “abomination,” and saying that it “stinks of oblation.”
   
   Again, these deletions on their own might not rise to the level of hysterical finger-pointing and loud cries of “heresy!” But they are a serious cause for concern, and it’s very curious that they mimic the surgery performed by the same Reformers who wanted to rob the liturgy of its Catholic and sacrificial character. In the world of sedevacantist-speak (which is often rich with references to Satan and Freemasonry) the label for such a criminal cut from the Mass would be “diabolical.”
   
   (Hmm, this 6000-character limit is quite unforgiving to the overly verbose. I’ll put my two concluding paragraphs in the next post. )

 

[Yggdrasil]

Those are just three examples I chose at random. Honestly, we probably could bury our noses in the multitude of changes between the Tridentine Mass and the Novus Ordo for the next five years and still not exhaust the possibilities. For the purposes of our discussion here, though, I think it might be easier to just look at the two in toto and recognize that the Tridentine Rite, which “raises the minds of the faithful, by visible signs of religion and piety, to the contemplation of those most sublime things hidden in the sacrifice” is—as Quo Primum tells us—about as perfect and error-free as things are likely to get. And we should likewise realize that the Novus Ordo was thus, by virtue of that fact, totally unwarranted and unlawful, and that it was a product of a committee making a massive sweep of changes (and not the result of slow organic growth), and that it contains enough similarities to the anathematized Protestant liturgies to make one’s head spin.

Looking at the two in a broad sense, then, the question becomes: how could it be anything other than heretical for a pope and a hierarchy to violate Quo Primum in order to force a liturgy full of error, innovation, ambiguity, doubtful validity, and Protestant design onto the faithful (worldwide, mind you—this was no isolated experiment) when for four hundred years the Tridentine Rite was serving as the standard par excellence? The whole point of Trent and Quo Primum was to keep the Protestant aspects out of the Mass. Yet the modern hierarchy saw fit to them on galore, all the while neutering the original orations of their Catholicity (usually by deletion). It’s not only a break with tradition, but it’s a break in all the obviously wrong directions. If you can perhaps look at it in that context, I think it might simplify things.

 

[ravenonthecross]

I am a traditionalist Catholic, who is NOT a sedevacantist; nevertheless, I do not condemn them, though I most strongly disagree with their view regarding as to the “Sede” being “vacant;” rather I am one of those, who believes the Seat of Blessed St. Peter to be currently occupied by a valid Roman Pontiff, as opposed to it it being “vacant.”

I pose a few questions for one who may be a sedevacantist to answers, if they so might be so kind as to do so:

1. Would not the Eastern Rites contain valid and licit bishops, Patriarchs, and priests as most are ordain according to same valid formulae without essential change?

[My comments: I believe with the claims of the Invalid consecratory forumulae of the newly revised ordaination rites [as opposed to the Pre-conciliar Roman ordination forumla] to ignore the group of sui juris Eastern Catholics’ whose father, sacramental formulae and essential liturgy remain without essential, doctrinal, or fundamental change.]

Question #2:
2) What are some specifics regarding “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” are denied in Vatican II according to your view?

Question #3
3) Finally, the Second Vatican Council was announced to be of a purely pastoral nature; therefore, additionally it had the additive of also proclaiming, that its focus was not to proclaim any or define any new “doctrine” or “dogmata;” And so nothing was also said to have be proclaimed “de fide;” finally, With this view in mind, ergo being as nothing “de fide” was proclaimed in Vatican II, nothing therefore, even were it so to be held as contradictory; as such contradictory notions would have been negated by previous Oecumenical Councils of the Holy Catholic Church.

With this assertion in mind: How is this “not” so?

As to further evince my point, I shall provide the lauded pre-conciliar Catholic Theologian Dietrich Von Hildebrand, who much praised by Venerable Pius XII he spoke thusly pertaining to the Second Vatican Council:

“The Second Vatican Council solemnly declared in its Constitution on the Church that all the teachings of the Council are in full continuity with the teachings of former councils. Moreover, let us not forget that the canons of the Council of Trent and of Vatican I are de fide, whereas none of the decrees of Vatican II are de fide; The Second Vatican Council was pastoral in nature. Cardinal Felici rightly stated that the Credo solemnly proclaimed by Pope Paul VI at the end of the Year of Faith is from a dogmatic point of view much more important than the entire Second Vatican Council. Thus, those who want to interpret certain passages in the documents of Vatican II as if they implicitly contradicted definitions of Vatican I or the Council of Trent should realize that even if their interpretation were right, the canons of the former councils would overrule these allegedly contradictory passages of Vatican II, because the former are de fide, the latter not.” — [Dietrich von Hildebrand, “Charitable Anathema” Roman Catholic Books (1993)]

 

[Yggdrasil]

At the start of my unfortunate 30 year time as a sedevacantist, the main argument presented was that the Novus Ordo changes the words of consecration of the wine in such a way that the meaning is distorted thus resulting in no consecration and no Mass. The words were changed from (if memory serves) for "This is my blood of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which will be shed for you and for many for the remission of sin. " The words “for many” were changed to “for all.”

The people who influenced me claimed that this was a radical change in that it meant that all were saved regardless of whether they were members of the church or not. I remember someting called the “Res Sacramenti” being mentioned.

I’m really surprised you changed your mind on this one. I think it’s one of the strongest and most basic arguments in the sedevacantist book.
DE DEFECTIBUS (Pope St. Pius V):

If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament.

CATECHISM OF TRENT: The Sacrament of the Eucharist:

The words “for you and for many” serve to declare the fruit and advantage of Christ’s Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore Our Lord said “for you,” He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added “and for many,” He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.

With reason, therefore, were the words “for all” not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine.

“For all” pertains to salvation, which is indeed offered to everyone. “For many” pertains to the fruits of salvation, which is the gift of the Eucharist: “that we might be partakers of His Divinity.” Since the Mass IS the sacrament of the Eucharist, it is only fitting to use “for many” in order to speak of the fruits. “For all” is meaningless is the context of the sacrifice of the Mass.

The words of the form must signify the effects. That’s res sacramenti in a nutshell. I don’t know how to explain it any better. The bottom line is: if the new words don’t mean the same thing, then there is no valid sacrament. “Many” and “all” carry distinctly different meanings in the context of the Mass, as the Tridentine Catechism is at pains to make clear. I can’t help it if that’s the theology, but there it is.

I’m actually not sure if “for all” is supposed to be a reference to universal salvation or not. Whatever it is, it’s plainly wrong.

I also remember a lot of talk about how the Novus Ordo is no longer a sacrifice but rather a meal “like the Protestants”. They really pounded that one since there is a table instead of an altar. It wasn’t until I opened my mind a bit and went to the Novus Ordo that I discovered the theme of sacrifice is still prevelent.

The Novus Ordo DOES mention sacrifice, yes. But it’s mentioned as “a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.” Even the Protestants left that line in—they have no problem with such a sacrifice. As Martin Luther himself said, “the only sacrifice at the Lord’s Table is the sacrifice of ourselves.” The Catholic Mass, on the other hand, must have references to the true, mystical, and propitiatory sacrifice, which the *Novus Ordo *(in both text and design) is deficient in.

 

[Yggdrasil]

As to further evince my point, I shall provide the lauded pre-conciliar Catholic Theologian Dietrich Von Hildebrand, who much praised by Venerable Pius XII he spoke thusly pertaining to the Second Vatican Council:

“The Second Vatican Council solemnly declared in its Constitution on the Church that all the teachings of the Council are in full continuity with the teachings of former councils. Moreover, let us not forget that the canons of the Council of Trent and of Vatican I are de fide, whereas none of the decrees of Vatican II are de fide; The Second Vatican Council was pastoral in nature. Cardinal Felici rightly stated that the Credo solemnly proclaimed by Pope Paul VI at the end of the Year of Faith is from a dogmatic point of view much more important than the entire Second Vatican Council. Thus, those who want to interpret certain passages in the documents of Vatican II as if they implicitly contradicted definitions of Vatican I or the Council of Trent should realize that even if their interpretation were right, the canons of the former councils would overrule these allegedly contradictory passages of Vatican II, because the former are de fide, the latter not.”

My response to this is that EVEN IF the documents of the Second Vatican Council are not de fide (and one wonders why Lumen Gentium is called the “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church”), it makes no sense to have a Church in which a council is convened—supposedly being guided by the Holy Spirit, and taking up three years of everyone’s valuable time—only to produce a flurry of documents which appear to contradict or muddle prior Church teachings, not to mention a liturgy which causes unspeakable chaos and confusion for the next forty years. If that’s the way it works, then bring me a gilded Buddha statue, because such a thing would expose Christianity as a hopelessly man-made religion. Fortunately, Christianity is not man-made on the reasonable premise that only the Council and the Novus Ordo are. Phew!

In the end, it ultimately doesn’t matter to the thesis of sedevacantism whether Vatican II taught dogmatically or not. The question is simply whether the post-conciliar popes and many members of the hierarchy have either espoused, taught, or endorsed heresy. We are instructed to judge a tree by its fruits.

 

[manualman]

Yggdrasil,

I will concede that 5 decades is a MUCH smaller deal than 13 centuries! But the kernel underneath is still the same: Both Luther and the sv believe(d) that THEIR interpretation of earlier christian writings and traditions is correct even in the face of a unified magisterium pointing out their error. It may be a crab apple versus a Granny Smith, but they are still the same species.

The English reformation, on the other hand, is NOT the same species. Do not be so quick to presume ignorance on the part of earlier generations. Without internet or TV news, those folks STILL got word of happenings in the outside world. Word got out that what was happening WAS a rebellion by the English bishops against the pope. Yup, those that kept the catholic faith WERE heroic, but did not necessarily need heroic intellect. Intellectually, all they needed was to recognize that the controversy was a local church gone rogue. Easy to say, hard to live! But Vatican II was not the result of some “cadre” of rogue bishops. It was virtually EVERY licit catholic bishop in the world, PLUS the pope! Sorry, that’s apples and broccoli.

I’ve read your following critique of the N.O. As usual you make some GREAT points about problems in the liturgical changes. I’m not terribly far in my Vatican II document reading, so I can’t yet finger precisely which elements in the N.O. today are truly a result of Vatican II and which are the result of usurper bishops and ciminal meddling by members of the ICEL (now THERE’S a “cadre”…) For now I’ll assume it all comes from VII, but I hope you haven’t assumed that and done your own reading.

What most sv apologists seem to fail to grasp is the difference between changeable disciplinary teachings and doctrine. Arguments like “Trent anathemized X and VII called for it, therefore VII is anathema!” are specious. What they fail to do is to investigate WHY Trent was opposed to “item X” in the first place. Start with the purpose of Vatican II in the first place. Why was it called? From my reading, John XXIII recognized that massive social changes in civilization were afoot due to widespread industrialization/mobility, much more widespread education, trauma due to WWII and the related conflicts that continued afterwards and the overall increasing secularizing attitude gaining traction especially among the wealthy and influential classes. Those who try to pin today’s ills on Vatican II simply don’t know social history. It was all coming for us regardless!

What Vatican II was an attempt to do was to assess the pastoral needs of humanity in the industrial / urban reality of the modern world and proclaim and hold forth the timeless truth of the gospel in a way that addressed the dire needs of a changed world. A man who spends his entire day working the fields in many ways already encounters God there and has different pastoral needs than does a man who sits in a cubicle or factory workstation all day. The man who has an advanced degree needs a different level of comprehension of the faith than does an illiterate migrant. Fortunately, catholicism (being TRUE) has an innate appeal to BOTH. But the council fathers seem (rightly, IMO) to be concerned that the popular devotional life developed over 2,000 years did not in every case serve the ‘new’ man as well as it had the ‘old.’
Thus, it appears to me that every change made in Vatican II was done so in attempt to assist the comprehension level of laymen for whom the old level of comprehension was insufficient, but perhaps the Mdiv level of priestly education was still too high.

Trent may have condemned vernacular masses, but why? Was it an intrinsic problem with vernacular or was it because the ONLY people agitating for vernacular masses in the day were troublemakers? Might they have been concerned that it would be an impossible task to regulate translations into HUNDREDS of vernacular languages and that some of them would be done badly? That’s a practical concern, not a theological one. And the Trent fathers were probably right. Even 400 years later it is still taking the ICEL 50 years to properly translate the mass into English. How much worse would that process have been in that earlier era? My point is that the reasons for some historic practices may not be theological in nature. SOMEBODY has to be in charge of evaluating that. In catholicism, that somebody is the Magisterium. In the sv world, that somebody appears to be each individual’s judgement based on their reading of historic teaching.

 

[Lormar]

This is a wonderful discussion.

In my local parish, it is, I hate to say it, more lutheran than Catholic. I often question whether the Mass is valid due to lack of intention. Whenever the pastor quotes a theologian, you can be sure it’s a lutheran one. So, the Mass is more of a community meal than the Eternal Sacrifice. Also, one look around at the people (most in their 60s, 70s and 80s) and you can plainly see what the past 45 years have wrought.

Yesterday, and this is the second time we’ve witnessed this, the deacon walked past Our Lord in the tabernacle without any recognition whatsoever and proceeded to bow to the “table.”

I guess what I am trying to say, is that you can place the blame for sedevacantism squarely at the door of the post-VII Church. If everything had been handled in a truly Catholic manner instead of ramrodding changes down everyone’s throats, there would be no sedevacantists today. If the “extraordinary form” had been allowed to “co-exist” alongside the novus ordo, there would be no SSPX. A lot was done wrong, and very little right. Hence the present problems.

 

[whatischarity]

Your wrote:

I’m really surprised you changed your mind on this one. I think it’s one of the strongest and most basic arguments in the sedevacantist book.

That is why I wrote it so that people would know the main reason that sedevacantists claim the Mass is an invalid sacrilege. Remember the marked difference between me and you is that I know what you know about sedevacantism but you do not know what I know about being in a pew in the Roman Catholic Church today.

You wrote

The Novus Ordo DOES mention sacrifice, yes. But it’s mentioned as “a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.” Even the Protestants left that line in—they have no problem with such a sacrifice. As Martin Luther himself said, “the only sacrifice at the Lord’s Table is the sacrifice of ourselves.” The Catholic Mass, on the other hand, must have references to the true, mystical, and propitiatory sacrifice, which the *Novus Ordo *(in both text and design) is deficient in.

One day I brought my missalette home and went through the various forms of the Novus Ordo and recorded all the mentions of sacrifice. That excercise would be beneficial to you. However, make no mistake. I am not writing to enlighten you as a Sedevacantist but rather to answer the threads question about the differences between a traditional Roman Catholic and a sedevacantist.

 

[whatischarity]

If we judge a tree by its fruits and Vatican Council II was a fruit of the Roman Catholic Church it is problematic indeed!

It is possible individual bias is at play in looking at the fruits of Vatican II. If Vatican II successfully coupled Roman Catholic belief with an effort to remove stumbling blocks for those of weak faith who left the Church into Protestantism then perhaps the real fruit of Vatican II will be te fulfillment is Jesus desire that all will be united in His Church. I believe St Paul wrote at length about the necessity of the believer to take into consideration the weaker persons sensibilities in order to not offend.

I know the Sedevacantist feared that Vatican Council II would result in the visible Church melding into the other churches. This didn’t and isn’t happening. This is problematic for the Sedevacantists view of reality as is the fact that the end of the world hasn’t happened. I won’t say that they keep hoping, but, well…hmm.