The Extremists

[Lamafacaja]

Yggsdrasil: And I am so very tired of the accusation of Protestantism. But in the end I did read it. Interestingly, someone left a single provocative comment to Mr. Salza’s essay in June of 2009, which remains unanswered as of today. It’s a good (and subtly made) point, too: lay **“Charismatic Catholics,” whose movement began in 1967, claim that the Holy Spirit speaks to them personally, inspiring all manner of Pentecostal gesticulations and lurchings, not to mention “speaking in tongues,” and they get the ringing endorsement of the Church. **Meanwhile, sedevacantists, who appeal to two millennia of tradition and doctrine, are either ignored or summarily dismissed.

I’m not particularly comfortable with much of the tomfoolery that goes on within the Catholic Charismatic movement either, Yggsy. I stay away. Never the less, it or something like it is mentioned in the bible. And, as she often does, I think that the Church is taking a wait and see sort of approach with regard to the modern Catholic Charismatic movement.

 

[Lamafacaja]

the Yggsman: I find it strange that he demands a “precedent” for sedevacantism when sedevacantists fully concede that the gravity and scope of the current crisis renders it without precedent. And besides, nowhere in the Church’s 2,000 history is there any precedent for a pope and a hierarchy destroying the Mass and invalidating the sacramental forms of the Eucharistic and Episcopal Ordination rites,

The Arian heresy–which was nothing to sneeze at–would be the closest thing. That was pretty darn horrible, too. Arguably worse than the current crisis.

…so I wonder where the precedent is for Mr. Salza’s own position of accepting such works of darkness.

Because he loves the Church, despite her warts.

His description of a “liturgical crisis in the Church” is a criminal understatement, since “the Church” requires the visible signs of the sacraments and Apostolic succession in order to be the Catholic Church in which a liturgical crisis can occur in the first place.

Come again? Could you rephrase that for me?

He later boasts that “Catholics are free to practice the faith as they always had before 1958.” Well: pssh. Here’s just an anecdotal comparison: in 1958, my grandparents could walk down the block to their parish church for any of the Sunday Masses and be treated to the ancient Roman Rite, thoroughly uncorrupted, and with nary a Protestant or modernist trapping in sight. I’m sure you can guess what I get if I walk down the block to my local Catholic church for any of the Sunday services!

First off, I’m sorry for your situation. I agree that years ago one could walk into any Catholic church and expect it to be, well, Catholic. But I’m here to tell you that in my area I’ve three very good options within driving distance. I understand the level of frustration and upsetment that must cause. I pray you will have better option soon, too.

My beloved Holy Father is bringing tradition back into the liturgies. He is. And the Latin Mass has been liberalized. It’s coming back, Yggs. It’s coming back, Yggs. Prayer, penance, patience.

(And, just to be nitpicky about it, the Missal approved for use these days is the 1962 Missal of John XXIII, with even more recent changes made to the traditional Good Friday office. In 1958, the Jews were still “perfidious.” But apparently they aren’t any longer, because John Paul II has told us that “the Old Covenant has never been revoked.”)

Haha, I think you’ll be pleased with me to know that I have a 1955 and a 1958 missal.

 

[Lamafacaja]

Yggs: None of the post-conciliar popes have seen fit to personally respond to the sedevacantist objections. And really, they don’t have to if they don’t want to—shepherding 1.4 billion people, a few ornery thousand is just a drop in the bucket. The sedevacantists can be brushed aside as easily as a pesky spider is flicked off of a vestment. Or can they? It’s kind of intriguing (to me, at least) that even as “traditional” Catholicism gains momentum (viz., the rising popularity of the FSSP and more Latin Masses at Novus Ordo parishes), sedevacantism meanwhile not only refuses to go away, but has indeed shown some considerable memetic allure, and is becoming a perennial topic for discussion.

If something is true, and I believe the Holy Catholic Church is true, then there’s no risk in exploring the theory of sedevacantism. In the end it can only increase our faith, the more we learn, the more we understand the truth.

 

[Lamafacaja]

Yggs: Space forbids my replying to every point in that essay…

A good thing, because I have laundry and cooking to be done and need to pull myself away from our discussion for now. Chow for now Yggsy!

PS-do you think it was rather cheeky of me to give this thread a five star rating?!?!?! It was, wasn’t it!

 

[Lormar]

You lose nothing by sticking with the Pope and the Church. Even if some of what the sedevacantists claim is one day validated, we are none the worse for sticking with the Church and trusting that Our Lord meant what He said.

But if you are wrong…that’s a big risk to take, dear Yggs, isn’t it?

 

[portarica]

You lose nothing by sticking with the Pope and the Church. Even if some of what the sedevacantists claim is one day validated, we are none the worse for sticking with the Church and trusting that Our Lord meant what He said.

But if you are wrong…that’s a big risk to take, dear Yggs, isn’t it?

Isn’t that the “insurance policy” method of belief?

Are we Roman Catholics because we believe that what Jesus taught was the right guide for our lives or are we Roman Catholics because we believe it is the only branch rooted in Jesus that makes us eligible for heaven or maybe both?

Peace

 

[Lormar]

Porto

You put words in my mouth.

 

[Yggdrasil]

You lose nothing by sticking with the Pope and the Church. Even if some of what the sedevacantists claim is one day validated, we are none the worse for sticking with the Church and trusting that Our Lord meant what He said.

I know that I’m only repeating myself here, but it bears repeating: sedevacantists also trust in Our Lord’s promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. If we believed that the words of Christ had turned out to be a lie, then we would go by a rather different title, that being “atheist.” Sedevacantism maintains that there is a Catholic Church—a living and mystical body of Christian believers with an Apostolic hierarchy, sacraments, the Mass, and the deposit of Faith (“whole and inviolate”). Sedevacantism merely avers that the Church is temporarily without a true Roman Pontiff, and suggests that the Second Vatican Council, the Novus Ordo Missae, and the teachings of the post-conciliar popes are illegitimate, and worthy of being ignored.

Second verse, same as the first!

You can say that it’s fine to “stick with the Pope” but, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, “that all depends on what your definition of ‘the pope’ is.” Sedevacantists believe that the Pope—although no man can judge him—is nevertheless subservient to his master, Christ, and that his function is to steward and protect the faith, and not corrupt its dogmas at whim.

But if you are wrong…that’s a big risk to take, dear Yggs, isn’t it?

Regarding my own salvation, I am not permitted to presume anything. May Our Lady pray for us, now and the hour of our death. All I can say is that if I see a pope endorsing, defending, and celebrating a manifestly heretical and invalid form of the liturgy, then I hope that it would not be beyond the infinite mercy of God to forgive me for being led to believe that such a pope is not really a pope at all. Kyrie eleison.

 

[whatischarity]

Sedevacantist do not believe in a united hierarchy. Theirs is a hybrid model with their claim of apostolic succession through Thuc but they have no unity among themselves but rather independent bishops who tend to blast each other eventually. The term “sedevacantist” is really a misnomer because not only do they believe there is no Pope but they also believe all the bishops recognized by the Roman Catholic Church are heretics. An unbiased person would probably say that, if the Pope and all the Bishops in union with him have been unknowing heretics for the last 40 some years with no end to their heresy in sight, then this constitutes the destruciton of the Roman Catholic Church. Sedevacantists know they can’t say that so they say, “Hey, we are the church. Obey us,” Reminds one of Animal Farm.

 

[whatischarity]

Sedevacantism merely avers that the Church is temporarily without a true Roman Pontiff, and suggests that the Second Vatican Council, the Novus Ordo Missae, and the teachings of the post-conciliar popes are illegitimate, and worthy of being ignored.

Merely? The term “sedevacantist” is a misnomer because not only do they believe there is no Pope but they also believe all the bishops recognized by the Roman Catholic Church are heretics. An unbiased person would probably say that, if the Pope and all the Bishops in union with him have been unknowing heretics for the last 40 some years with no end to their unknown heresy in sight, then this constitutes the destruction of the Roman Catholic Church. Sedevacantists know they can’t say that so they say, “Hey, we are the church. Obey us,” Reminds one of Animal Farm.

Sedevacantist do not believe in the need for a united hierarchy. Theirs is a hybrid model with their claim of apostolic succession through Thuc. They have no need for a hierarchy since they have usurped the role of determining when the Pope and united bishops and priests have lost thier offices due to heresy, when a council of the church is spewing heresy, when the official worship of the church is sacriligeous, when the rite of ordination is invalid. They even claim this is an easy task and requires only basic decency to realize these things.

As a side note, how relevent are the Old Catholics who broke from the church over Vatican I which they considered a travesty?

 

[Yggdrasil]

The term “sedevacantist” is a misnomer because not only do they believe there is no Pope but they also believe all the bishops recognized by the Roman Catholic Church are heretics.

That’s just the thing: they don’t believe that a confederacy of heretics is the Roman Catholic Church.

I will agree with you that the term “sedevacantist” is a misnomer due to its inadequacy in encompassing a broad position. But it serves as a decent enough shorthand. We all know more or less what is meant by “sedevacantist.”

An unbiased person would probably say that, if the Pope and all the Bishops in union with him have been unknowing heretics for the last 40 some years with no end to their unknown heresy in sight, then this constitutes the destruction of the Roman Catholic Church.

You presume that your “unbiased person” would necessarily equate “small in numbers” with “destroyed.” The two are not synonymous. Would an unbiased person consider the Shaker religion to be non-existent? There seem to be only three known adherents to Shakerism left in the world, but does that mean that an unbiased person would call the Shaker religion “destroyed”? Of course not. It’s just an infinitesimally tiny and obscure sect, but nevertheless: there it is. Lest we forget our history, Christianity began with only twelve bishops in an upper room and a small assembly of followers in Palestine.

As for “no end in sight,” you may prognosticate as you please. Sedevacantists don’t believe in crystal balls. Someone famous once remarked that “with God, all things are possible.”

 

[Yggdrasil]

Sorry for the insult, Yggsy. I was looking past the insults to his argument. I should’ve put a disclaimer in my last post for that because I don’t mean to insult you or any other sedevacantist.

Not to worry, Jaca; I would never take it as such to be your intention, and it is a well-written challenge to the sedevacantist position. Besides, maybe he just wanted to show off his mastery of Latin!

I’m not particularly comfortable with much of the tomfoolery that goes on within the Catholic Charismatic movement either, Yggsy. I stay away. Never the less, it or something like it is mentioned in the bible. And, as she often does, I think that the Church is taking a wait and see sort of approach with regard to the modern Catholic Charismatic movement.

You are correct, of course; both the book of Acts and the epistles of St. Paul mention speaking in tongues. But even Paul supposed that “tongues will cease” (1 Corinthians 13:8), and history records that they did actually cease. Only the earlier books in the New Testament make reference to tongues, and St. Augustine (looking around in the fourth century and realizing that Catholics don’t go in for glossolalia) regarded tongues as a miraculous sign given uniquely to the first Apostolic generation. The only significant group within the Early Church that did claim that the Holy Spirit spoke through them in tongues were the Montanists, who were condemned.

So if tongues didn’t cease—if Doctors of the Church such as St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom were wrong on the matter—then we have to assume that they lay strangely dormant for almost two thousand years before re-emerging within a highly dubious modern movement which: a.) would have been unthinkable before Vatican II, and b.) incorporates a whole lot of Protestant Pentecostal shaking-and-lurching or, as you put it, “tomfoolery.”

You are somewhat too kind, though, I think, in your final assessment: the Church hasn’t quite taken a “wait and see” attitude. What is there to “wait and see” about, after all, when the evidence ought to be bounteous after forty years of holy rolling? The fact is, both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have publicly praised the Charismatic Renewal. And various bishops have blessed these “happenings” with their presence and approval. This is only begs the question, of course: what needs to be “renewed”? Is this something that should’ve been happening, but wasn’t? How very odd if so. Perhaps Montanus ought to be rehabilitated, and his excommunication posthumously lifted.
HISTORIA ECCLESIASTICA (Eusebius):

Montanus became beside himself, and being suddenly in a sort of frenzy and ecstasy, he raved, and began to babble and utter strange things, prophesying in a manner contrary to the constant custom of the Church handed down by tradition from the beginning.

Some of those who heard his spurious utterances at that time were indignant, and they rebuked him as one that was possessed, and that was under the control of a demon, and was led by a deceitful spirit, and was distracting the multitude; and they forbade him to talk, remembering the distinction drawn by the Lord and his warning to guard watchfully against the coming of false prophets.

Was John Paul II “guarding watchfully against the coming of false prophets” when he proclaimed that the Charismatics “contribute to the life, renewal, and sanctification of God’s People”? If those aren’t the words of a man who has made an assessment and an endorsement, then I don’t know what.

If it was just a bunch of enthusiastic lay people and some renegade priests involved, and if the Church was staying mum and cautiously observing—neither discouraging or praising—then I would say that yes, the Church’s attitude is “wait and see.” But given the positive reviews and the endorsements of bishops and popes, I’d say it’s been very much accepted.

 

[Patrick_Eastin]

Let us be extremely cautious with the sedevecantist label and implications that the chair of Peter is vacant.

 

[Lujack]

Explain the charge that post-Vatican II sacraments are all invalid.

 

[Malleus_01]

Actually - Those whom you call sedevacantists are not autonomous. They most certainly do not say that “Everyone who isnt a sedevacantist is going to Hell”. Most of the extremeism I am witnessing here is by the people who are directing their rage and falsehoods at the sedvacantists. Try educating yourselves. I do not know a single Catholic who attends the Tridentine Latin Rites refering to themselves as a " sedevacantist. " We are merely Catholics who wish to remain Catholic. What you see when you attend the Latin Mass is modesty attention and devotion. Women cover their heads. Communicants kneel at the communion rail. The Nuns in full habit sing Catholic hymns from the choir loft. And as Benedict himself told you in Motu Proprio - the Latin Rites Suffice for Sunday Obligation. What you dont see is immodest dress - clown masses - worldly homilies and people standing there sticking out their hand for communion. That would be true extremism.

 

[Lujack]

Actually - Those whom you call sedevacantists are not autonomous. They most certainly do not say that “Everyone who isnt a sedevacantist is going to Hell”. Most of the extremeism I am witnessing here is by the people who are directing their rage and falsehoods at the sedvacantists. Try educating yourselves. I do not know a single Catholic who attends the Tridentine Latin Rites refering to themselves as a " sedevacantist. " We are merely Catholics who wish to remain Catholic. What you see when you attend the Latin Mass is modesty attention and devotion. Women cover their heads. Communicants kneel at the communion rail. The Nuns in full habit sing Catholic hymns from the choir loft. And as Benedict himself told you in Motu Proprio - the Latin Rites Suffice for Sunday Obligation. What you dont see is immodest dress - clown masses - worldly homilies and people standing there sticking out their hand for communion. That would be true extremism.

Nothing about going to the Tridentine Mass implies sedevacantism; there are groups that say the EF that are in perfect union within the Pope. That’s creating a false dilemma.

 

[distracted]

All councils are guided by the Holy Ghost and the outcomes are therefore holy and accepted and willed by God. Books and laity cannot arbitrate it.

thank God for that…

especially considering how awful mob rule can be… think French Revolution…

and many other thigns in history…

well, an even better example is the Crucifixion…

 

[distracted]

at least we don’t have to worry about the people ruling here in the United States…

 

[Yggdrasil]

Let us be extremely cautious with the sedevecantist label and implications that the chair of Peter is vacant.

Greetings, Patrick. Thank you for the caution. If sedevacantism is an off-limits topic (as mentioned here), then I apologize for posting on this issue and will desist at your say-so. All I can offer in my defense is that I’m a new member and was negligent due to sheer ignorance.

If, however, the aforementioned post from Ms. Benedict is more of a guideline than an absolute ban (as suggested here, admittedly by a non-moderator), then I hope we’ll be allowed to continue the discussion on this thread, provided we maintain the amount of decorum we’ve managed thus far.

I recognize that leveling a charge of heresy at the current pope and his immediate predecessors (all of whom are respected, recognized, and beloved by many people on this forum) has an incendiary tinge to it. Having been on an another Catholic forum, I’ve learned to avoid doing so unless it’s absolutely necessary for the sake of the discussion—and as often as possible, I try to use the modifier “alleged”.

Explain the charge that post-Vatican II sacraments are all invalid.

Well, the charge is not that the post-Vatican II sacraments are all invalid, but that the Eucharist is (by way of vernacular translations), as is also the sacrament of Holy Orders.

The appeal is made to traditional sacramental theology: that the form of the sacraments must, as Leo XII insisted, “signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify.” I attempted to offer a very brief explanation of the allegedly deficient form of the Eucharist in the Novus Ordo here. A lengthy explanation of the allegedly deficient form of consecration in Holy Orders can be found in the link posted below.

A thorough discussion of either one would probably require a new thread of its own.

His description of a “liturgical crisis in the Church” is a criminal understatement, since “the Church” requires the visible signs of the sacraments and Apostolic succession in order to be the Catholic Church in which a liturgical crisis can occur in the first place.

Come again? Could you rephrase that for me?

Sorry, Jaca, I forgot to mention that Mr. Salza neglected to address the sedevacantist position that two sacraments have likely lost their validity due to changes in the form after the “liturgical renewal,” to wit: the Eucharist and Holy Orders. You’re doubtless familiar with the problem of “for many” and “for all” in the Mass. You’re also probably acquainted with the controversy over the doubtful form of Episcopal Ordination, but if not, I think it’s best explained in this essay by Fr. Cekada. It’s sixteen pages, and I know you’re a busy Mama Lama, but it’s worth a considerate read. With all the other chaos going on (combating the madness of Vatican II is like fighting a hydra), this issue wasn’t given due consideration until the late 1970s, and it played a part in the defection of nine sedevacantist priests—Fr. Cekada among them—from the SSPX in 1983. It has emerged to the fore in recent years after Benedict XVI’s election, since he is the first pope to have been consecrated a bishop according to the new rite.

So basically, what I meant was: it’s more than just a “liturgical crisis” in the Church if the liturgical changes strip the Church of two of its most visible signs: the Eucharist and Apostolic succession. At that point one has to wonder where the Church actually is, not whether there’s a liturgical crisis in it. That’s why I called Mr. Salza’s assessment a “criminal understatement.” I apologize for the initial long-winded sentence and the resultant confusion!

 

[Lamafacaja]

Hi Yggsy,
I’d be happy to carry on our conversation at the other forum, which I linked in my pm to you yesterday. I’m a little unclear as to the rules here at CAF and don’t wish to be inadvertently breaking them. To what extent is a debate on sedevacantism tolerated here, anyway?