Sedevacantist against the True Chruch and our Blessed Pope

[BritishCatholic]

According to your argument, a pope would fall from office as soon as he became a heretic, even if his heresy was known only to himself and God. So no one could ever hope to know who was a valid pope and who was not. Yet not even those fathers of the Church who believed that a public heretic cannot be pope actually taught that privately known heresy also caused the pope to fall from office. Now, a private heretic is still a heretic. Yet, a private heretic could still be pope, right? So it is not correct that heresy in itself is incompatible with the papacy.

Your statement is good, but lacks logic.

What I mean by that is this: A man has to go through a lot of stages to become Supreme Pontiff(I mean, there are exceptions, but every pope has been at least a bishop for centuries before elected to the pontificate). He is normally ordained a deacon, works as a deacon by preaching and so forth, then he is ordained to the priesthood, in which he excersises in persona christi while celebrating the Holy Sacraments and saying Holy Mass, then he is ordained a bishop, in which he is officially a member of the Apostolic Succession and enjoys the fullness of grace of the sacred priesthood. And not only that, but then the to-be-pope oftens gets appointed to the Sacred College of Cardinals. And then even furthur, when Their Eminences elect a pope, they do so with the support and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Now tell me. Do you really think a true heretic would make it up the ranks? I think not.

 

[cam100]

Your statement is good, but lacks logic.

What I mean by that is this: A man has to go through a lot of stages to become Supreme Pontiff(I mean, there are exceptions, but every pope has been at least a bishop for centuries before elected to the pontificate). He is normally ordained a deacon, works as a deacon by preaching and so forth, then he is ordained to the priesthood, in which he excersises in persona christi while celebrating the Holy Sacraments and saying Holy Mass, then he is ordained a bishop, in which he is officially a member of the Apostolic Succession and enjoys the fullness of grace of the sacred priesthood. And not only that, but then the to-be-pope oftens gets appointed to the Sacred College of Cardinals. And then even furthur, when Their Eminences elect a pope, they do so with the support and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Now tell me. Do you really think a true heretic would make it up the ranks? I think not.

Probably not. I was just giving a theoretical example to prove a point. I do not think it likely that a heretic, public or private, would get that far.

 

[FKV]

Sedevacantism is very similar to Protestantism.

It relies on a subjective judgement which cannot be validated against any external authority (no tribunal, no magisterium, no holy office, etc.)

It also proposes an invisible church of the “true believers”, outside of Rome but possessing the powers to enable them to judge the entire hierarchy and body of the Church as apostate.

This is a rather excessive form of generalization in that it is stated that Catholics who accept the sedevacantist position are somehow similar in belief to Protestants. Based on my conversations with people who profess such things, and in reading their material, I see that they have not rejected the Papacy as Protestants do, nor do they reject the divine mission of the Church. In what way, then, are they similar to Protestants?

Again, from the sedevacantists I have spoken to (and whose material I have read), I fail to see that their approach “relies on subjective judgment.” For example, a rather well done study found at traditionalmass.org/images/articles/ecclesiology.pdf is far from “subjective” in its approach, unless you consider citing pre-Vatican II papal teachings (which, by the very definition of things, are part of the Magisterium) as “subjective.” If that is the case, then we need to redefine subjectivity to match was is now being said.

Sedevacantism “proposes an invisible church”? Can you explain where they have said such things? Again, based on conversations I have had on this topic, I have found that sedevacantists reject the idea that they are making a “personal” judgment of the pope/heretic, as if they are doing it because they don’t like the man. Rather, many of them quote the teachings of St. Robert Bellarmine (a Doctor of the Church) who clearly teaches that the pope/heretic **judges himself **because of his public and pertenacious heresy. You can read more about this at sedevacantist.com/bellarm.htm. This appears to be a more “authoritative” and non “subjective” look at things than what I read from those opposed to sedevacantism. Besides, in that Bellarmine has been proclaimed a Doctor of the Church, his writings have more weight than opinions found on blogs. This is what I meant before about citing Church teaching and not personal opinions in such an important topic.

 

[FKV]

Apart from any larger consideration of the arguments for and against sedevacantism, the excerpt quoted in the first post is, in my opinion, mistaken and perhaps even dishonest. It’s main point is a claim that article 6 of Summorum Pontifcam authorizes a hybrid Latin/vernacular mass in the same way Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium did. I believe the use of the word “readings” in article 6 of the MP is nearly universally understood to refer exclusively to the epistle and gospel readings, which were already repeated in the vernacular in many indult TLMs before the MP. This sedevacantist article, however, claims the word covers not only these readings, but “such prayers as the Introit, Offertory and Communion prayers, along with the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Benedictus, Agnus Dei, [and] the Lord’s Prayer.” The Kyrie is a “reading”? The Gloria, etc? Not to me.

In addition, the simple phrase “in the presence of the people” from article 6 of the MP is improperly confused with Sacrosanctum Concilium’s concept of “full and active participation by all the people” as if it is another authorization of the use of the vernacular in the Latin Mass.

This kind of distortion does not speak well and calls into question their true aims.

Hello. Sorry it has taken so long to reply to this. Blogging is rather secondary in my life.

Perhaps you failed to make the distinction in the original post on this subject between the opinions of the author and the statements of Bishop Emeritus Rene Henry Gracida that are embodied in this piece. First of all, Gracida is not a sedevacantist, as can be seen from this: goccn.org/diocese/about/gracida.asp. It appears to me that nearly everything with which you disagree is from the Gracida document (catholicknight.blogspot.com/2007/11/tridentine-in-english.html) and not the opinion of the author, so your final conclusion (that this article should make us question the “true aims” of the sedevacantists) is based on an erroneous reference. Besides, the motu proprio really is unclear about the vernacular readings during the Mass of the 1962 Missal: What Benedict XVI says in Article 6 can easily be taken as a permission to replace the Latin “readings” with the vernacular during the Mass, or it could mean what you say. We have to see how it will be interpreted.

This is why I asked for the author of the first post in this string to cite proper references to the objections he had from the article he quoted rather than engage in such far flung accusations as “stupidity” and “cult activity.” He still has not done so, but has only voiced an approval for the errorneous conclusion I reference above. It would have been better (in my opinion) that he had not posted his original message. It makes the discussion about the sedevacantists appear rather weak on the part of those who oppose what they have to say.

What is obvious is that in the past few months since the *motu proprio *came out, interpretations abound as to how it can be applied by various bishops in their dioceses throughout the world (and not by wishful thinking lay people). Afterall, are not “altar girls” being used as “servers” in some of the Latin Masses said by the Fraternity of St. Peter priests? Will Communion in the hand come next? Who will stop it, since it is already an approved practice from Rome? Who is to say that Bishop Gracida’s interpretation may not actually win the day in some areas? Isn’t this what the author was trying to point out? The motu proprio should not be viewed as an instant fix-it for all the modern errors, for from the same place the motu proprio has come to us, some very serious doctrinal errors are widely approved, as can be seen here: zenit.org/article-21356?l=english.

It seems that people are so anxious to get involved with a sedevacantist witch hunt that they tend to read articles critical of modern errors without the required objectivity. Isn’t this the very thing the sedevacantists are accused of doing?

 

[Cranch]

Hello. Sorry it has taken so long to reply to this. Blogging is rather secondary in my life.

Perhaps you failed to make the distinction in the original post on this subject between the opinions of the author and the statements of Bishop Emeritus Rene Henry Gracida that are embodied in this piece. First of all, Gracida is not a sedevacantist, as can be seen from this: goccn.org/diocese/about/gracida.asp. It appears to me that nearly everything with which you disagree is from the Gracida document (catholicknight.blogspot.com/2007/11/tridentine-in-english.html) and not the opinion of the author, so your final conclusion (that this article should make us question the “true aims” of the sedevacantists) is based on an erroneous reference. Besides, the motu proprio really is unclear about the vernacular readings during the Mass of the 1962 Missal: What Benedict XVI says in Article 6 can easily be taken as a permission to replace the Latin “readings” with the vernacular during the Mass, or it could mean what you say. We have to see how it will be interpreted.

Thank you for providing a reference to Bishop Gracida’s letter. After reading it, it is clear the author the OP quoted was merely sloppy in using the term “readings” as a catch-all phrase where the Bishop’s letter quotes Sacrosanctum Concilium’s reference to “readings, directives and…some prayers and chants.” However, it appears this writer (who the OP identifies as a sedevacantist) and not the bishop is responsible for conflating “presence of the people” and “participation of the people” and therefore continues to merit the label “distorter”.

As to the Bishop’s argument, it seems flawed on its face. The fact that the U.S. bishops received permission in 1964 to print a hybrid Latin/English missal has no bearing on the implementation of the MP, which clearly states in several places that the Missal of 1962 is to be used in the Extraordinary Form. From Article 1:Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage…It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church.
And notice the difference in emphasis between the Pope reaching back to the Missal of St. Pius V and calling the 1962 Missal a reissue of that great original, and Bishop Gracida’s depiction of an often-changing Roman missal as a justification for further alteration. Resort to Sacrosanctum Concilium, promulgated at the end of 1963, in my opinion also has no direct bearing on the MP (which does not reference that document).

You mention wishful-thinking. I think the term can be applied to all those (and not just laity) who refuse to see Summorum Pontificum as the full restoration of the Latin liturgy and instead see another avenue for vernacular “reformers”.

 

[Eileen_T]

Popes are only infallible in making doctrinal pronouncements *ex cathedra. * Even Pope Liberius, who condemned St Athanasius in his fight against Arianism. Athanasius refused to accept the validity of the excommunication, because he believed the Pope had acted under duress at the time.

The pope refused to sign a clearly Arian statement of faith, but did sign an equivocal statement which could be interpreted either in an orthodox or an Arian sense. He never formally taught heresy, even if he seemed to endorse it.

Can someone who holds to the sedevacantist position please point out where, in the formal teachings - encyclicals and MPs etc - one of the recent popes, who are held by them to not be valid popes, have taught heresy?

 

[Eileen_T]

Wot, no one?

 

[LatinOnlyPlease]

catholictradition.org/Encyclicals/primum.htm This is the Papal Bull of 1570 by St Pius V [an infallible teaching]…it has been searingly violated by every Pope since Vatican II. Pay particular attention to paragraph 6…Feel free to compare the Traditional pre 1962 Mass and Prayers to what you hear at the new “Mass” every Sunday… God Bless You

 

[reggieM]

It was also “violated” by Pope St. Pius X in his reform and Pope Pius XII in his.

 

[LatinOnlyPlease]

Eileen T, a Pope who kisses the Koran, celebrates with Hindus, and prays at a temple for the coming of the Messias is most certainly a heretic…the list is endless…

 

[reggieM]

In what way, then, are they similar to Protestants?

*It relies on a subjective judgement which cannot be validated against any external authority (no tribunal, no magisterium, no holy office, etc.)

It also proposes an invisible church of the “true believers”, outside of Rome but possessing the powers to enable them to judge the entire hierarchy and body of the Church as apostate.*

 

[reggieM]

unless you consider citing pre-Vatican II papal teachings (which, by the very definition of things, are part of the Magisterium) as “subjective.”

It’s basically the same as Sola Scriptura. It’s the private reading of texts and drawing conclusions based on a subjective judgement of what is read. It doesn’t matter that the texts come from the Council or from Popes – in the same way that Sola Scripturists use divinely inspired texts but arrive at conclusions which are subjective.

Sedevacantism “proposes an invisible church”? Can you explain where they have said such things?

The visible Church is defined as that Church which is a “city set on a hill”. It’s the Church that all can see and join. Sedevacantism proposes that there is no such Church on earth at present. There are only groups of “true Catholics” that one may or may not find and who disagree with each other. Some have elected Popes themselves (and are no longer sedevacantist). Others refuse to elect Popes even though they claim to have all the valid bishops in their own ranks (if the College of Cardinals, Pope and all other bishops are automatically deposed, then the sedevacantists have the responsiblity of electing a true Pope).

Again, based on conversations I have had on this topic, I have found that sedevacantists reject the idea that they are making a “personal” judgment of the pope/heretic, as if they are doing it because they don’t like the man.

Ok, well clearly I never said anything like that. It’s not a matter of not liking the person. It’s a matter of using private judgement to conclude that the Pope is a heretic. This judgement cannot be validated by the Church since the “validators” are heretics (supposedly) also.

With this as the situation, the only authentic authority in Catholicism would be the sedevacantists themselves. So, whatever they judge would have to be correct since they couldn’t validate it against any other external authority greater than themselves.

This is basically the Protestant position.

 

[LatinOnlyPlease]

Compare the “violations” of which you speak with the complete massacre since Vatican II. The modern Popes even violate Vatican II as Vatican II stated that the mass was to remain as it previously was with the exception that local dioces “could use the vernacular”…well that hasn’t happened now has it? And how is that the one and only true Church, the Roman Catholic Church, only subsists in the Church of Christ as stated in Vatican II? That is heretical in and of itself. If your defense of the modernists violating the infallible teachings of Vatican II are that “well your guy did it too”, then it would seem you don’t even believe in the infallibility of any Popes except those modern ones you like while ignoring the past.
On another note how does a modernist [one who attends and defends this completely new "mass] defend a Pope kissing the Koran, and praying in a temple with the perfidous Jews for the coming of the Messiah? How does one claim these are not heretical? Thank You and God Bless…

 

[cam100]

Compare the “violations” of which you speak with the complete massacre since Vatican II. The modern Popes even violate Vatican II as Vatican II stated that the mass was to remain as it previously was with the exception that local dioces “could use the vernacular”…well that hasn’t happened now has it?

A pope doesn’t “violate” a council because he alone has authority over a council’s directives. It doesn’t mean that what he did was a good idea, but he still had the authority.

And how is that the one and only true Church, the Roman Catholic Church, only subsists in the Church of Christ as stated in Vatican II? That is heretical in and of itself.

Actually, it says it the other way around: “… the one Church of Christ… subsists in the Catholic Church…”, and there is no “only” in there.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated that this is not meant to be interpreted as a change in the traditional doctine. Therefore, if you interpret it to be a contadiction, then you are not interpreting it as it was intended.

On another note how does a modernist [one who attends and defends this completely new "mass] defend a Pope kissing the Koran, and praying in a temple with the perfidous Jews for the coming of the Messiah? How does one claim these are not heretical? Thank You and God Bless…

I don’t consider myself a “modernist” at all, but I can see that these accusations don’t equate to a definition of heresy. We don’t actually know for sure that he kissed a Koran, and we don’t know his reasons if he did, but it does not make sense to assume that he did it because he believes in Islam. This assumption just doesn’t match his teachings.

With regard to praying with the Jews… he was praying in anticipation of Our Lord’s second coming. Do you really think Pope John Paul II didn’t believe in Jesus and was praying for a messiah? That doesn’t make sense. What he did may have been ill-advised, but you cannot claim heresy.

 

[JMMK]

The document from Pope Saint Pius V is very interesting. From what I read it removed all the orders of Mass not published by the Holy See unless it was one that was already in place and approved by the Holy See before 1370. Also it does state that the Missal should remain in tact “under penalty of Our displeasure.”

The trick is in the interpretation of in tact. A literalist interpretation would say that that document, spelling, puncuation, and everthing else must stay exactly the same till the end of this world.

Another interpretation would be that the content and form must stay the same but the exact wording, spelling or even language may be changed. Also this could go to the readings. Are the exact passages set in stone, or is their a criterion for each reading so long as the form of the mass stays the same.

This document is strong, but hardly crystal clear. As will all things must be taken with the rest of the Church’s teachings. The one thing that is perfectly clear is it establishes the primacy of Rome in terms of liturgical celebration.​

Addendum: A Papal Bull does not mean infallible. Strictly speaking a Bull refers to the seal that says its an official document by the Pope, and does not necessitate infallible. I would have to look closer at the exact situation to weigh in on this document being ex cathedra or not.

 

[cam100]

The document from Pope Saint Pius V is very interesting. From what I read it removed all the orders of Mass not published by the Holy See unless it was one that was already in place and approved by the Holy See before 1370. Also it does state that the Missal should remain in tact “under penalty of Our displeasure.”

The trick is in the interpretation of in tact. A literalist interpretation would say that that document, spelling, puncuation, and everthing else must stay exactly the same till the end of this world.

Another interpretation would be that the content and form must stay the same but the exact wording, spelling or even language may be changed. Also this could go to the readings. Are the exact passages set in stone, or is their a criterion for each reading so long as the form of the mass stays the same.

This document is strong, but hardly crystal clear. As will all things must be taken with the rest of the Church’s teachings. The one thing that is perfectly clear is it establishes the primacy of Rome in terms of liturgical celebration.​

Addendum: A Papal Bull does not mean infallible. Strictly speaking a Bull refers to the seal that says its an official document by the Pope, and does not necessitate infallible. I would have to look closer at the exact situation to weigh in on this document being ex cathedra or not.

I assume you are referring to the bull Quo Primum of Pope Pius V from 1570. As you said, “it establishes the primacy of Rome in terms of liturgical celebration.” This bull is not infallible, however, because it deals with instructions for celebrating mass, not with doctrine. The bull does not say that the missal of Pius V was the only method of celebrating a mass validly (that could fall under infallibility), but it did bind all clergy under pain of sin to use that missal (that is disciplinary).

Because it was an instructional piece, and not a declaration of doctrine, it could be altered or dispensed from by a pope - but only a pope, as the document itself rules out the authority of anyone less than a pope.

 

[JMMK]

Ah, thank you for the insight. It is that self same document. Someone posted a link to it earlier in the thread and I thought I would add my limited knowledge to it.

 

[SFD]

Unfortunately, there will always be weak and evil people within the Church. Our Lord warned us about trying to separate the wheat from the chaff too early. If you are looking for a Church on earth filled with nothing but saints, you will not find it. However, if you look with a critical and careful eye at the stories of wrongdoing that are blamed on the pope, you will find that no honest accusations of heresy can be made against him. Prudence should therefore prevent us from assuming that the seat is vacant. Have faith in Our Lord and his promises. He will never leave us.

Cam,

Of course there are and have always been weak people within the Church…if you read the encyclical Mystici Corporis you will see that clearly stated:

1. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” [17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. [18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
2. Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. it is owing to the Savior’s infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet. [20] For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins.

The question is about the Faith…do many modern Catholics actually have the Faith? Do they believe all the truths that the Catholic Church teaches? Or do they have their own set of beliefs…some coincide with Catholic teaching…some do not?

Many of these younger people simply don’t know what the Faith is. They generally will deny, totally without malice, the most fundamental dogmas of the Faith. Some of those dogmas they actually find quite surprising. For example, the dogma that the state of consecrated virginity is a more perfect state of life than the married state. They have no clear idea what the Real Presence means. The list goes on and on…

It’s not about people being weak…that’s always been the case and always will be…it’s about the Faith.

SFD

 

[SFD]

Here’s an example of what I am speaking of; from a recent newspaper article :

Catholic Youth Killed in Hit-Skip

…While acknowledging he has no power over sainthood, Robert McCarty, executive director for the National Federation for Catholic Youth Ministry, said he would like to declare “St. Veronica” a member of the community of saints.

McCarty offered up an “Amen!” and 20,000 teens and adults gathered in Nationwide shouted back “Amen!”
Then they stood and clapped – and some cried – for the girl who had died earlier that day.

McCarty said he talked with Gantt’s friends after she was killed and they described her as “a person of joy, a person who loved life, a person who loved her friends, a person who loved her God.”
He urged the young people to place their hands on their knees, palms up, and remember the teen who had prepared for a year to come to the conference.

He urged them to remember that, "Jesus said, ‘Fear not. Be not afraid. I am with you always.’ "

Everyone goes to heaven? Everyone is a Saint?

Can you imagine a Catholic from previous times saying such things?

 

[cam100]

Here’s an example of what I am speaking of; from a recent newspaper article :

Catholic Youth Killed in Hit-Skip

…While acknowledging he has no power over sainthood, Robert McCarty, executive director for the National Federation for Catholic Youth Ministry, said he would like to declare “St. Veronica” a member of the community of saints.

McCarty offered up an “Amen!” and 20,000 teens and adults gathered in Nationwide shouted back “Amen!”
Then they stood and clapped – and some cried – for the girl who had died earlier that day.

McCarty said he talked with Gantt’s friends after she was killed and they described her as “a person of joy, a person who loved life, a person who loved her friends, a person who loved her God.”
He urged the young people to place their hands on their knees, palms up, and remember the teen who had prepared for a year to come to the conference.

He urged them to remember that, "Jesus said, ‘Fear not. Be not afraid. I am with you always.’ "

Everyone goes to heaven? Everyone is a Saint?

Can you imagine a Catholic from previous times saying such things?

I think you’re being hypercritical here. Do you know how many saints (yes, from previous times) were placed on the track for canonization? It started with friends and acquaintances who thought the deceased was probably in heaven. Now, I don’t know how holy this deceased girl was, but the idea that her friends thought she might be in heaven is not heresy. Nowhere does it say that the people involved believed that “everyone goes to heaven”.