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

[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.

Something tells me we could probably go back and forth on this one for some time.

First off, maybe it would be helpful if we can agree that sedevacantism wasn’t dreamed up yesterday. The “five decades” estimate is therefore misleading when you consider that sedevacantism was appearing on the scene as early as the 1970s—in the very first decade following the Council. And the objections that sedevacantism is based on—such as Cardinal Ottaviani’s critique of the Novus Ordo—were formulated even before 1969. In fact, there had been a mutual antagonism between the enthusiasts for the Council and its detractors from the beginning, when Cardinal Ottaviani wondered aloud, “are these fathers planning a revolution?” Archbishop Lefebvre put his signature on the final documents begrudgingly, and he seemed to regret having done so shortly afterwards, defiantly saying that he would only interpret them “in the light of tradition.” Which I suppose you might equate with being the theological soulmate of Martin Luther, but you need only to look at how the documents were interpreted by the majority pro-conciliar bishops (and the resultant chaos) versus how nobly and serenely Abp. Lefebvre and his SSPX fraternity have shepherded their flock in the subsequent decades by more or less ignoring the Council and the modern popes altogether. You can call that Protestantism if you like, but to the unbiased observer it looks unmistakably like Catholicism as it had been taught, practiced, and understood for many centuries before. If you can bring yourself to look at the Council and the Novus Ordo as the point of initial divergence, then one will appear a lot more heretical than the other in the overall fifty years hence. Sadly, it’s the one with the popes and the numbers.

Secondly, the “unified magisterium” has hardly done anything constructive in the way of pointing out the sedevacantists’ alleged “error.” All that we continually hear is that sedevacantists are in disobedience because of their refusal to follow the pope and the hierarchy. But this is only ignores the original sedevacantist premise that the apparent pope is no pope at all, and that the hierarchy has apostatized. It is not a charitable attempt at correction to sweep the opponent’s argument under the rug and just bellow loudly that the dissenters MUST obey. As such, it only goes in circles.

Finally, your adherence to the Luther analogy continues to be puzzling because, as I’ve said before, sedevacantists reject nothing whatsoever in the Catholic faith as it was for nearly two thousand years—they reject only a single council and its liturgy (which many of us agree has been problematic at least), whereas Luther had to pick and choose and hunt hard for his justification—and he ended up with only the bible and a smattering of excerpts from the Early Church Fathers. Perplexity contributed an earlier post on this thread that summarizes the matter quite nicely. I think it deserves to be aired again, and read carefully:

The second type of discussion 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.

 

[manualman]

Ygg,

Yup, we’ve come as far in dialogue as we are going to here. Good luck to you and don’t forget to never stop asking God to help you discern the difference between traditions and Tradition. God bless.

 

[Yggdrasil]

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.

I’m afraid that’s an oversimplification. There is ample historical evidence that the faithful were grossly deceived by their bishops. An excellent book on the subject is The Stripping of the Altars by Eamon Duffy. Duffy lays out in laborious detail the richness of Catholic piety prior to the Reformation. Unlike the urban intellectuals in Germany and northern Europe who were drawn to a rationalistic “religion of the book,” the English were still largely wedded to the mystical faith, and harbored little desire for the iconoclasm that would eventually be forced upon them by their bishops.

Remember, the English Reformers were claiming to be the via media (middle way) between what they saw as the Lutheran & Calvinist extremists on one hand, and the Roman decadents on the other. In the earliest stages of this, the laity in England were not unlike the proverbial frog in the slowly-heating pot of water. After all, their king, Henry VIII, had been given the title “Defender of the Faith” in 1521 by Pope Leo X, and Henry’s tract in defense of the seven sacraments was viciously assailed by Martin Luther, who called him “stupid and sacrilegious … a pig, an ***, a dunghill … a buffoon dressed in a king’s robes, a mad fool with a frothy mouth and a whorish face.” The schism, as everyone knows, resulted from Henry’s disobedience on the matter of his divorce. Several years after the initial break from Rome, though, Thomas Cranmer was still burning Protestants at the stake for denying transubstantiation. What he and his fellow bishops were also doing was poisoning the minds of Britons against the Vatican. And the local propaganda machine was a lot more effective than the truth, which had to travel over an entire continent and then be subject to suppression once it reached the isle. Many conservative bishops who opposed the Henrician regime chose to remain quiet, believing that the schism was temporary and would eventually right itself. Even in 1538, there were still dioceses in which feasts of the Virgin were duly observed, and where the pope’s name hadn’t been defaced in the prayer books.

A majority of the people followed their bishops all the way into the Edwardian regime, which is when the real fireworks began. And by then it was too late. When the beautiful English churches were whitewashed, the laity were often infuriated—in some instances they were so passionate about the damage being done that they showed up with torches and bows & arrows to stop the iconoclasts. But it’s important to note: they still believed their bishops were bishops. The intellectual damage had already been done. It’s a sad testament to our 20th century ennui that Catholics didn’t oppose the same “wreckovation” of their American churches in the 1960s, when sometimes construction crews were hired to come in with jackhammers to remove the high altars and reredos that were distracting from the ugly minimalism of the Novus Ordo design. But the water had been simmering around the Catholic laity for almost a decade. John XXIII had made alterations to the Roman Missal before the Council had even begun, and in the intervening years leading up the Novus Ordo, the Mass was changed ever so gradually so as not to be too alarming. As Cardinal Heenan put it:

Why does the Mass keep changing? Here is the answer. It would have been foolhardy to introduce all the changes at once. It was obviously wiser to change gradually and gently. If all the changes had been introduced together you would have been shocked.

Hilaire Belloc noted the same strategy employed by Abp. Cranmer, whose Book of Common Prayer went through a series of revisions, getting less and less Catholic which each new edition. Michael Davies quotes an Anglican theologian as commenting thusly:

The First Prayer Book of Edward VI could not be convicted of overt heresy, for it was adroitly framed and contained no express denial of pre-Reformation doctrine. It was, as an Anglican scholar put it, “an ingenious essay in ambiguity,” purposely worded in such a manner that the more conservative could place their own construction upon it and reconcile their consciences to using it, while the Reformers would interpret it in their own sense and would recognize it as an instrument for furthering the next stage of the religious revolution.

So while the English Martyrs (and all those recusants who were courageous enough to keep the ancient faith) are deserving of our awe and admiration, it’s also true that many good and conscientious Britons were led tragically astray by the specious “reform” undertaken by their hierarchy. “It must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh”—“it would be better for such a person to be thrown into the sea with a millstone round the neck than to be the downfall of a single one of these little ones.”

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.

*Still *not apples and broccoli!

My stated principle still applies: all you have to do is widen the scope. The difference is between the Church of England gone astray and the Vatican gone astray. Admittedly, it makes for a much more cataclysmic scenario, but there it is. The underlying principle remains.

You make some other challenging points—I’ll respond as time permits.

 

[Yggdrasil]

Ygg,

Yup, we’ve come as far in dialogue as we are going to here. Good luck to you and don’t forget to never stop asking God to help you discern the difference between traditions and Tradition. God bless.

Okay—and God bless you, too. If you don’t mind, though, I would still like to respond to some outstanding points from your previous post because they’re especially relevant to the thread.

 

[manualman]

No sweat. Good old Hillaire Belloc. “How the Reformation Happened” is a superb book, but having read it I must point out that your conclusions are rather different than Belloc’s. Hillary is convinced that the “English Reformation” was nothing more than an economic power grab by the elite classes who lusted for the land wealth enjoyed by the religious orders and wrapped up in trumped up theological mumbo jumbo. (somehow he managed that rather more eloquently than I!). Yet another way in which it is utterly different in substance than today’s mess.

 

[Yggdrasil]

Good old Hillaire Belloc. “How the Reformation Happened” is a superb book, but having read it I must point out that your conclusions are rather different than Belloc’s. Hillary is convinced that the “English Reformation” was nothing more than an economic power grab by the elite classes who lusted for the land wealth enjoyed by the religious orders and wrapped up in trumped up theological mumbo jumbo. (somehow he managed that rather more eloquently than I!). Yet another way in which it is utterly different in substance than today’s mess.

I haven’t read that book, but Belloc is in a tent of his own among historians if he concludes that the English Reformation was “nothing more” than an economic power grab. But even if old Hillary absolutely nailed it regarding the cause, it would still not detract from the fact that ambiguity and the gradual introduction of change were among the tactics used, nor that Catholic recusants—the true believers in the ancient faith—became a marginalized minority. And it would still not change the fact that it was the ecclesial hierarchy formulated the doctrinal and liturgical changes. These significant ways in which Vatican II mirrors 16th century England would not be changed; only the motives would be different.

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.

At the end of the day, an anathema is an anathema. But even if we do investigate the historical context of things, the WHYS of the Tridentine anathemas are quite obvious: they were intended as bulwarks against Protestant practices and ideas creeping into the Church and the liturgy. I think it’s widely-agreed that the Council of Trent is the sine qua non of what’s commonly called “the Counter-Reformation.” Protestantism still being with us (along with its vibrant young cousin, secularism—the opium of the age), there was just as much reason for Vatican II to safeguard the Catholic integrity of the Mass as there was at Trent. If anything, the impetus should’ve been even greater. But instead the opposite was done, and the faithful were given a Mass that was not only reminiscent of Protestant services but “thoroughly modern” as well.

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!

I’m well aware of the sea changes in society wrought by 20th century progressivism. Not for nothing did Our Lord call Satan “the prince of this world.” And for good reason did the Syllabus of Errors condemn the following proposition: “that the Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.” Yet that seems to be precisely what John XXIII did and—by your own admission perhaps?—was the cause for calling the Council.

If you’ve read John XXIII’s encyclical Pacem in Terris, then you’re familiar with his blithe disregard for the Syllabus of Errors, and it isn’t difficult to wonder that Benedict XVI has called Gaudium et Spes—in the service of rendering it praise—“a counter-Syllabus.” Only if we conclude that our modern world is less hostile to the faith than it was in the time of Pope Pius IX can we agree that the condemnations had lost their force by 1965. But given the obvious fact that the world had become toxic (both literally and figuratively speaking), it is difficult to imagine why, in Benedict’s words, there was a need at Vatican II to “reconcile the Church with the world.” Such a view had already been condemned—and remains condemnable!

 

[Yggdrasil]

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.’

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.

That remains your own speculation. It’s notable, however, that there exist four hundred years worth of Catholic apologia defending the use of Latin in the Mass against Protestant naysayers. How many of these Catholic writers use the argument that it would just be too darned troublesome to accurately translate? How many of them say that it’s because only troublemakers want the vernacular? None of the ones that I’ve read. Most of them draw out the important distinction that the vernacular is the language of commonality, rationality, and the inane discursive chitter-chatter inside one’s skull—whereas a “sacred language” helps to displace one’s thoughts from the quotidian banalities that often preoccupy us, and serves draw our focus to the transcendent holy mysteries of the liturgy. Another prominent argument is that it is fitting that the Church that is both “universal and One” should have a unifying language of worship.

The closest one to your surmise of “translation difficulties” was taken up by Archbishop Gibbons:

As the Church’s doctrine and liturgy are unchangeable, she wishes that the language of her Liturgy should be fixed and uniform. Faith may be called the jewel, and language is the casket which contains it. So careful is the Church of preserving the jewel intact that she will not disturb even the casket in which it is set. Living tongues, unlike a dead language, are continually changing in words and meanings. The English language as written four centuries ago would be now almost as unintelligible to an English reader as the Latin tongue. In an old Bible published in the fourteenth century St. Paul calls himself “the villain of Jesus Christ.” The word “villain” in those days meant a servant, but the term would not be complimentary now to one even less holy than the Apostle. This is but one instance, out of many which I might adduce, to show the mutations which our language has undergone. But the Latin, being a dead language, is not liable to these changes.

So it’s not that a translation would necessarily be a daunting task, but that any translation would be susceptible to the natural degradation that inheres in the evolution of a living vulgate. Whether two world wars have happened or whether homo sapiens has moved into skyscrapers and office towers is irrelevant: “faith is the jewel, and language is the casket that contains it.” The fact that modern man makes his living as a cubicle-dweller and does not “earn his food by the sweat of his face” is a symptom of his diseased society; for the Church to give this poor soul a banal liturgy on top of his already sad predicament only adds insult to injury.

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?

You can answer that question by perusing any pre-Vatican II Missal. To wit: consider the “many” and “all” controversy. There is not a single Tridentine Missal in existence that translates pro multis as “for all.” This is because even a first-year Latin student knows the difference between omnis and multis. It is inconceivable that the liturgists on the ICEL committee—who are supposedly among the leading lights of the Church’s Latin-to-English scholars—are collectively dumber than the average college freshman. The mistranslation was doubtless intentional. And before you label ICEL a “cadre,” you might note that it’s not just the English translation that’s defective. Paul VI himself used “tutti” even when celebrating the transitional Novus Ordo in Italian. Since Padre Montini’s grasp of Latin was doubtless formidable, it is evident that the “all” translation was accepted (and perhaps encouraged) even from the highest office.

A decent and accurate translation was not hard to come by before Vatican II, so why is it taking 40-odd years to get even the basics correct in the Novus Ordo? Especially in the sacramental formula, and more especially since sedevacantists have been calling its very efficaciousness into question for almost the same length of time?

Just as an aside, there used to be an ICEL translation of Anaphora IV in the *Novus Ordo *that addressed God the Father by saying “you alone are God.” Perhaps you remember it? This was an outright denial of the Trinity, of course, and Anaphora IV was nicknamed “the Arian Canon” in traditionalist circles. I don’t know if you’ll be surprised to learn that it took a full eighteen years for this error to be rectified.

 

[ravenonthecross]

'Tis just my thoughts: As the Catholic Church experienced the Arian heresy with the majority of our hierarchs adhering to Arianism; I likewise can see the same in regards to Neo-Modernism. And as Popes then may have been derelict and negligent in their duties, but not anathema, I view likewise of today’s Pontiffs. Just my opinion and to my view. That’s all.

 

[Lormar]

That our beloved Church has survived for two thousand years is proof of Its’ divine origin. Has anyone here wondered how much worse certain times in Its’ history would have been had they the means of communication that we have today?

Trust in Our Lord and not in fallible men; He meant what He said.

 

[gamewell45]

A very big one.

A sedevacantist believes the current Pope (and the last several) are not valid Popes. They are totally out of communion with Rome, and are likely manifest heretics. Only the wacko fringe of the traditionalist movement are sedevacantists.

Traditionalist simply prefer the older way of doing things: the Mass of 1962, older manners of priestly dress and Church architecture, older method of teaching on morality, etc. They can be in full communion with Rome (FSSP, ICRSS, many non-affiliated Catholics) or in a more tenuous state (SSPX). In any case, the SSPX accept Benedict as Pope, despite their canonical status.

God Bless

Fr. Lucian Pulvermacher is a well-known sedevacantist.

 

[Yggdrasil]

Fr. Lucian Pulvermacher is a well-known sedevacantist.

Just a minor correction here: Lucian Pulvermacher actually claimed to be the pope (Pius XIII), after which he couldn’t really be considered a sedevacantist—strictly speaking—any longer. He is best considered either a “conclavist” or an “antipope,” depending on your preference. It’s noteworthy that almost every conclavist group (thus far) has had either deficient or dubious Apostolic succession. A good “sobriety test” for Catholics who deny the legitimacy of the post-conciliar popes is to ask whether or not they think there’s a “real pope” out there, somewhere other than at Rome.

Lucian’s brother, Fr. Carl Pulvermacher, served for many years as a priest of some distinction within the SSPX.

 

[graceandglory]

is there a difference between the two?

im not gonna lie i am not a fan of vatican 2 and its effect on the catholic people, but i do believe and have faith that God will set wrongs right. the gates of hell will never prevail against the church.

I don’t see any difference between a sedevacantist and me, who spent 20 yrs away from the Catholic Church in evangelical churches, with holier people than the ones I knew growing up Catholic; because I believed that God wasn’t leading the Catholic Church, and I “found the Lord” in protestant denominations. Both are protesting the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church.

 

[Yggdrasil]

I don’t see any difference between a sedevacantist and me, who spent 20 yrs away from the Catholic Church in evangelical churches, with holier people than the ones I knew growing up Catholic; because I believed that God wasn’t leading the Catholic Church, and I “found the Lord” in protestant denominations. Both are protesting the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church.

Again, it needs to be stressed: sedevacantists are not “protesting” the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Most Protestants are content to wear the etymology of their title proudly—and most Evangelicals will happily elucidate their opposition to the Catholic faith, based as it is upon tradition and Magisterial teaching instead of just the bible alone. But sedevacantists do nothing of the sort. They reject nothing whatsoever of the Catholic faith—unless, of course, you consider the Second Vatican Council to be authentic teaching, and the Novus Ordo a legitimate Mass. You are welcome to that perspective. But consider that even many Catholics who have remained faithful to Rome since the Council have nonetheless shown themselves to be confused by its teachings, and nearly scandalized by the fruits. The Council is controversial for the very fact that it is seen to go against the grain of tradition.

The sedevacantist avers that it is the progressive post-conciliar hierarchy which actually strives to go against the Church, neutering her traditional teachings and profaning her liturgy (does not the Novus Ordo bear the real spirit of the Reformation in its striking resemblance to the Anglican and Lutheran services?)

So the question becomes: should we just go around in circles and accuse each other of being “Protestants” until the end of time, or should we be charitable and try to make the discussion about the Catholic integrity (or alleged lack thereof) in the documents of the Council, the teachings of the post-conciliar popes, and the design of the new liturgy?

 

[gamewell45]

Just a minor correction here: Lucian Pulvermacher actually claimed to be the pope (Pius XIII), after which he couldn’t really be considered a sedevacantist—strictly speaking—any longer. He is best considered either a “conclavist” or an “antipope,” depending on your preference. It’s noteworthy that almost every conclavist group (thus far) has had either deficient or dubious Apostolic succession. A good “sobriety test” for Catholics who deny the legitimacy of the post-conciliar popes is to ask whether or not they think there’s a “real pope” out there, somewhere other than at Rome.

Lucian’s brother, Fr. Carl Pulvermacher, served for many years as a priest of some distinction within the SSPX.

Very good point.

 

[Perplexity]

I offer another insight i’ve gained from hearing both sides out extensively.

Aside from their moral and theological qualms with Vatican II, sedevacantist’s teach only what the pre-Vatican II Church taught. Therefore, the beef between sedevacantist’s and sedeplenist’s is limited to their understanding of Vatican II, and their application of pre-Vatican II teachings to the last 40 some years. Granting that sedeplenist’s also hold to pre-Vatican II teachings, the disagreements should be soley on whether Vatican II is faithful to their common understandings of pre-Vatican II teaching.

Talking to a sedevacantist is almost like speaking to an average Catholic 200 years ago, because they embody an unadulterated understanding of Catholicism universally believed for centuries before.

Therefore, whether sedevacantist, or sedeplenist imagine that you could travel through time and meet, in person, Pope Leo XIII. Could you tell him everything you believe is representative of Magisterial teaching with confidence?

It seems the if the sedevacantist’s told Leo XIII everything they believed without mentioning their qualms with Vatican II Leo XIII would embrace them as faithful Catholics. But could sedeplenist’s look Leo XIII in the eye and tell him all of the teachings emenating since Vatican II are Roman Catholic with confidence? Would they have to do some elaboration? Would Leo XIII react like Lefebvre or the sedes? Just some thoughts for personal reflection.

God bless