The Extremists

[Malleus_01]

<<< 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.>>>>

During the Western Schism there were two then three claimants to the Papacy and several Saints and thousands of laity fully supported some of the Anti Popes - St Vincent Ferrer comes to mind. Today we know that only one is legitimate. Maybe 100 years from now people will look back at these times with the same understanding. Lets us not be so quick to judge the sedevacantists simply because they dont happen to agree with you as to who the POPE is or Isnt. St Vincent Ferrer was mistaken but it didnt stop him from raising a boy from the dead and Sainthood. GOD will reveal the truth in due time and just as you seemingly desire unity - what makes you so certain that they do not. The Very Documents of Vatican II State in “Dignatis Humanae” :

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.

Does this not apply to the sedevacantists? What I find rather ironic is that most Catholics today see nothing wrong with Pope Benedict visiting Mosques and Synagoges and consorting with Anglicans - but are seething mad when they hear of a Catholic who doesnt support this type of thing and who prefers to simply worship GOD with Prayers and the Mass as prior to Vatican II as is their right under Vatican II. Or are the documents of Vatican II which are championed by you merely binding when you want them to be and non binding when you dont want them to be.

Pax

 

[Sword_Brethren]

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 o

Is it the Catholic Lay person’s responsibility to decide if the New Order of Mass and New Ordinations are valid or not valid? Who is the Lay person to make that decision?

 

[Yggdrasil]

Is it the Catholic Lay person’s responsibility to decide if the New Order of Mass and New Ordinations are valid or not valid?

Normally, it is not the standard practice in the Catholic Church for the lay person to second-guess the hierarchy. But with the “New Order of Mass,” an exceptional situation presents itself. Not only is the lay person confronted with a liturgy that bears a Protestant design (anathematized at Trent) and a modernist character (condemned by St. Pius X), but also a sacramental form that appears plainly deficient in light of the standards of validity according to St. Pius V. And not only that, but this “New Order of Mass” follows on the heels of a controversial council, and arrives at the very same time that numerous heterodox ideas are being preached to the faithful by the bishops. In such a special case, the lay person is surely obligated by his or her conscience to “test everything, and hold on to what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

The lay person cannot decide authoritatively that the Novus Ordo is invalid, because he or she hasn’t the office. But this does not mean that a decision can’t be made. During the time of the Arian heresy, a lay person would’ve been perfectly within rights to declare the error of Arianism and to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, even against a bishop or a group of bishops. It took a Council, however, to do it formally and dogmatically.

Who is the Lay person to make that decision?

The lay person is a Christian, who “by virtue of his title to the name Christian, has not only the necessary knowledge of the essentials of the treasure of Revelation, but also the duty of safeguarding them.”

If a lay person (for whom the sacrament is supposed to be an outward and visible sign) is not allowed to make a decision about the form of a sacrament based on the fundamentals of Catholic sacramental theology, then we might as well all go home. If a change in the wording of the form doesn’t really make a difference, then it would’ve been pointless for St. Pius to publicly include an article in De Defectibus addressing just that: a change in the wording of the form. Why should the laity be bothered learn about things like form, matter, and intent if these things are either provisional or not worth knowing about?

It’s probably worth pointing out, however, that this conclusion wasn’t reached by members of the laity in the first place. It was initially formulated by various clergy, scholars, and theologians. This happened in the decade following the Council.