How Useful Is This Argument Against Sedevacantism?

by Jimmy Akin

Thursday, June 09, 2011 11:41 PM Comments (121)

Last time we dealt with the first part of a two-part query from a reader. Now for part two.

The question is: How useful can a particular quotation from Vatican I be in dealing with sedevacantists (i.e., those who say there is no valid pope at present)—particularly those who say that Pius XII was the last valid pope.

The quotation from Vatican I is:

f anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

Since the time of Vatican I the canonical penalty of anathema—which was a special kind of excommunication done with a particular ceremony—has been abolished, so nobody today is under the penalty of anathema even if they do violate this canon.

However, this canon defines a point that appears to be divinely revealed. The obstinate doubt or denial of a doctrine that is both divinely revealed and infallibly defined by the Church as such is a heresy, and thus under certain conditions a Catholic who falls afoul of this canon can indeed excommunicate himself (and automatically so). This just isn’t the kind of excommunication formerly known as anathema.

So much for the canonical aspects. What about its utility as an argument when dealing with sedevacantists?

To assess that, we first need to understand what is being defined in this text. And we have to do that rather carefully, because infallible definitions must be construed narrowly. Thus the Code of Canon Law provides:

Canon 749 §3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

One results of this is that we must ask what the council was trying to define. If it is manifestly evident that a particular proposition was intended then that proposition is defined infallibly. If it is not manifestly evident then it is not to be regarded as infallibly defined.

In the case of the Vatican I statement quoted above, the purpose of the council was to define that it was “by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church.” In other words, the papacy is not a man-made thing. It is not by human or merely ecclesiastical law that there be an ongoing line of successors to St. Peter with jurisdiction over the whole church. (The council also identified the bishop of Rome as that successor, but this isn’t the point that concerns us here.)

It is manifestly evident that the council wished to say that Christ’s intention that St. Peter would have an ongoing line of successors with primacy over the whole Church, but this does not mean that there would be a successor at any particular moment.

There obviously isn’t a successor during the “interregnum” (between the reigns) period between the death of one pope and the election of another. Sometimes these interregna have even lasted years, when the college of cardinals had trouble making up its mind (though that hasn’t happened in a very long time; that’s why the conclave was invented, so that the cardinals would be effectively locked up together until they came up with a successor).

So if the passage from Vatican I does not ensure that there will be a successor at any particular moment then a sedevacantist could simply argue that now is one of those moments. Something either went wrong with a recent papal election, in such a way that invalidated it, or—according to one theory that at least some thinkers in Catholic history have advocated—a pope could forfeit his office through heresy.

One of these two things is, in fact, what sedevacantists claim. So I don’t see the text from Vatican I as being a useful argument against sedevacantism in general, but there is another possibility. Might it work against a specific form of sedevacantism?

According to many current sedevacantists, Pius XII was the last valid pope. He died in 1958, which was 53 years ago.

Here is where the argument gets interesting: In order to be pope, under current canon law, one must be elected by the college of cardinals. In order to be a member of the college of cardinals, one must be appointed by the pope. In order for the pope to appoint you, he must be alive.

If the last valid pope died in 1958, that would seem to mean that no cardinals have been validly appointed since then. How many cardinals are alive today who were appointed before 1958?

None.

The longest-serving cardinal at present is Eugenio Sales, who wasn’t appointed until 1969. If his elevation to the cardinalate was invalid, and so were all subsequent elevations due to a lack of valid popes, then it would appear that the college of cardinals now has no members. With no valid members, it would seem impossible for there to be another validly elected pope.

Ever.

That would be odd.

It would certainly seem to be contrary to the will of Christ who, in the words of Vatican I, willed “that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church.” If Christ really wills that there be an ongoing series of successors then one would think he would keep the Church from getting into a position where it is impossible to elect any more successors.

So do we have a good argument here, from Vatican I, after all? An argument that deals a death-blow to a major current form of sedevacantism?

Let’s think about what responses a sedevacantist (of the requisite type) might make. What avenues of counter-argument might he have?

For a start, he would be able to say, “Hey, I agree with that Vatican I said. I think Christ did will that St. Peter have ongoing successors to the end of time (with gaps here and there). It’s not Christ’s will that we currently be without a pope. It’s a tragedy that we are!”

Responding to this, one might say, “Okay, but then how are we supposed to get a new pope?”

Here the sedevacantist would seem to have two options: (1) He could bite the bullet and say that there just is no way to get a new pope; we’re just stuck. Or (2) he could say that there is, in fact, a way to get a new pope, despite what you might otherwise thing.

If he picks option (1), do we have him?

I don’t think so. At least not based on what Vatican I says. The reason is this: God can will things in different senses.

He can, on the one hand, will that certain things happen or not happen in what’s sometimes called a “preceptive” way. That is, he establishes a precept that things happen (Honor thy father and mother) or that they not happen (Thou shalt not bear false witness). But it’s clear that when God wills something preceptively, that doesn’t mean it’s going to come to pass. People dishonor their fathers and mothers all the time. They bear false witness all the time.

On the other hand, God can will that certain things happen or not happen in what’s sometimes called an “efficacious” way. That is, he not only wills that they happen but he arranges circumstances so that they do in fact happen. This is the case, for example, when a pope or a council speaks infallibly. God wills that when certain conditions are fulfilled, the resulting teaching will be infallible, and he brings it about that the teaching is infallible. If a pope or council were to try to define something that is false, something (pleasant or unpleasant) would happen to stop this from happening.

So one question we have to face is: What kind of willing is being talked about in the text from Vatican I?

For a variety of reasons, a very strong case can be made that it’s the first. Let me give you just one reason: In its historical context, Vatican I was dealing with people who had argued that the papacy is a man-made institution, not one that exists by the will of Christ or by divine law. That was the point this particular text was dealing with.

It was not responding to people who claimed that the papacy is a divine institution but it might not endure to the end of the world—with gaps here and there (due, at least, to interregna), but with a guaranteed new successor before the end of the world and alive at the time Christ comes back.

The latter claim does not appear to be what the council was attempting to define. As a result, it is not manifestly evident that the council defined this teaching, and so—according to the 1983 Code of Canon Law—we should not regard this teaching as having been infallibly defined.

The sedevacantist thus can say, “You’re overreaching with the text from Vatican I. It’s just an affirmation that it’s the preceptive will of Christ that there be ongoing successors to Peter—not a guarantee that there will be one alive at the time of the Second Coming.”

I think this is a valid response. I don’t think we can get from the text of Vatican I an infallible definition of the proposition that there will be a living success of Peter at the very end. We might believe this on other grounds, but it’s not what Vatican I was attempting to define, and thus it’s not something Vatican I defined.

If one can produce other grounds that guarantee a living successor of Peter at the Second Coming then it is those grounds—not Vatican I—that one should point to.

The idea that there would not be a living successor of Peter at the end of time is a very uncomfortable thought—so uncomfortable, in fact, that many sedevacantists would not want to go in this direction and would instead pick option (2) and claim that there is a way to get a new pope, despite what one might think.

What might a sedevacantist of this sort claim?

I can think of several possibilities off the top of my head:

a) There was a secret conclave before the last valid cardinals died, and there is a continuing papacy that is little known or in secret.

b) God could make a new pope known by divine (and presumably private) revelation.

c) In the absence of a valid set of cardinals, and the impossibility of generating new ones, the ecclesiastical law providing for the election of a pontiff by the college of cardinals has lapsed, making it possible to elect a new pope through some other means (such as by a tiny remnant of the “true faithful,” whether they be conceived of as bishops, priests, laypeople, or some mix of those).

In fact, variations on these the proposals are what some sedevacantists claim. In fact, some have already proposed new anti-popes citing one or another of these as the basis. (In fact, I’ve had more than one current anti-pope ask to friend me on Facebook, though I have declined these invitations since I strongly suspected it was just a ploy to get in front of my FB friends to promote their anti-papacies.) This means that they and their followers aren’t technically sedevacantists but schismatics following a false pope.

A sedevacantist could even say, “I don’t know what the method is for getting a new pope, but there must be one.”

In fact, a sedevacantist could even site the very same text from Vatican I and—again taking it beyond what the council was attempting to define—argue that this text shows that there must be a way of getting a new pope, even though it isn’t presently clear what that is.

So I don’t think that the Vatican I text is a knock-down argument against sedevacantism, even of the sort that sees Pius XII as the last valid pope.

That’s not to say it’s useless. It does, after all, show that it’s at least the preceptive will of Christ that Peter have ongoing successors, and if that’s the case then it’s reasonable to suppose, hope, and think that in a matter this important he would guide the Church in such a way that we don’t get into a no-pope-ever-again situation. But this is only one datapoint in a larger argument that must be mounted.

I think there is quite a bit of fruitful material to be mined in the area we are exploring—the implications of the will of Christ for the ongoing nature of the papacy—and how this ill-fits with the claim that the papacy has been vacant for more than half a century. The cognitive dissonance created by that idea, plus the lameness of the alternative ways of getting a pope mentioned above (each of which is fraught with problems) makes a powerful case that the sedevacantists are simply wrong, and profoundly so.

But I think in order to make that case we need to appeal to a broader array of evidence and that the text from Vatican I doesn’t settle the matter for us, as great as that would be.

What do you think?

Posted by Vermont Crank on Thursday, Jun 16, 2011 10:31 AM (EDT):

One of the grave evils of modern life is the internet with which delusional men who have lost the Faith can spread doubt, fear, and enmity against Holy Mother Church.. Those who lose The Faith refuses to hear the Catholic Church when she speaks and teaches.

I post this copy and paste from Mr. Michael Davies for lurkers:

+++++++ begin quotes +++++++++

THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDECH
A Defence of the Catholic Priesthood
by Michael Davies
1979 AND 1993

Appendix X
The Indefectibility of the Church

The indefectibility of the Church is a teaching fundamental to the nature of Catholicism. It assures us that the Church is divinely constituted, and because Our Lord has promised that the gates of Hell will never prevail against it, its Divine constitution will endure unchanged until He comes again in glory to judge the living and the dead. In other words, the Church will remain in every essential respect precisely as Our Lord constituted it until the end of time. It will always be a visible, hierarchically governed Church whose bishops are in full Communion with the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ. It will always teach faithfully the Gospel entrusted to it by Our Lord, and impart the grace necessary for the faithful to live up to the demands of the Gospel through the Sacraments instituted by Our Lord. The doctrine of indefectibility guarantees that the supreme authority in the Church, the Roman Pontiff, could never impose or authorize for universal use throughout the Church any liturgical rite or practice that was contrary to sound doctrine, could invalidate the Sacrament, or undermine Catholic belief.

In this instance the Roman Rite can be considered as equivalent to universal as it includes the overwhelming majority of Catholics throughout the world, and is proper to the Holy See itself. Thus, if the Latin Ordinal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1968, or the Latin Missal promulgated by him in 1970, are examined carefully, they will be found to contain nothing incompatible with the Catholic faith. But only the Latin typical editions of sacramental rites come within the scope of the Church’s indefectibility. Vernacular translations are, by their very nature, not imposed or authorized for the universal Church, and the possibility that they may contain erroneous or harmful elements cannot be excluded. A vernacular version of a sacramental form could result in invalidity if it did not reproduce the exact sense of the Latin text. This does not mean that it must be an absolutely literal translation, but if it departs from the Latin to the extent of involving a significant change of meaning, then the Sacrament will not be valid. It is true that all vernacular translations receive Papal approval, but this merely indicates that the Pope and the curial department concerned presume that a national hierarchy, or group of hierarchies linked on the basis of a common langauge, has ensured that translations into their languages are accurate. The almost countless vernacular versions of sacramental rites in the world today preclude the least possibility of any pope being able to vet them all personally for reasons of time, apart from ignorance of almost all the languages concerned. Mass is now said in Esperanto and Pidgin English, a fact which almost defies credibility, and does indeed do so when one hears the Pidgin form of the Consecration.

The aftermath of Vatican II proves how prudent the Popes were prior to the Council to insist upon the use of uniform Latin text for sacramental rites throughout the world.

The Church could not be considered a perfect, visible supernatural society (and it is of Divine faith that the Church possesses these characteristics) if the possibility existed of it offering its members invalid Sacraments. If ever a pope approved an invalid sacramental rite the faithful would be deprived of a means of holiness necesary for their salvation, and hence the Church would have failed, and the gates of Hell would have triumphed. In other words, Our Lord would have made a promise that He could not keep and hence He could not have been divine, which would mean that our entire religion is a mockery.

This is precisely what is claimed by those alleging that any of the sacramental rites promulgated since Vatican II are invalid. Concessions such as the permission for Communion in the hand, granted to specific countries, are also excluded from the scope of indefectibility. Where the reception of Holy Communion is concerned, the norm for the Roman Rite is still Communion on the tongue, even though in almost every country Communion in the hand has become the norm. But in every instance of the authorization of this practice the permission given has been from the norm of Communion on the tongue. It is perfectly legitimate to argue that by surrendering to the fait accompli of Communion in the hand in country after country the Holy See has contributed to the weakening of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament. True as this may be, and I have not the least doubt that it is true, it does not compromise the doctrine of indefectibility as no blanket permission for Communion in the hand for the universal Church has ever been given.

The doctrine of indefectibility most certainly does not require us to believe that new sacramental rites promulgated with papal authority are ipso facto superior to those that they are intended to replace. It
is perfectly permissible to claim that such a rite gives liturgical expression to the doctrine of the Sacrament it enshrines less effectively than its predecessor, thus weakening the principle lex orandi lex credendi. It is equally permissible to argue that the prayers and ceremonies of a newrite are less effective in raising the hearts and minds of the faithful to Almighty God, and evoking in them the sentiments and dispositions most likely to ensure fruitful reception of the Sacrament. All that the doctrine of indefectibility requires us to believe is that at the very least in its Latin Typical Edition, any sacramental rite approved by a Pope will be valid, contain no heresy, and nothing overtly harmful to the faithful participating in it.

Theologians make a distinction between the Pope ‘sentiendo’ (giving sentence) and the Pope ‘disserendo’ (giving an opinion). When Pope Paul VI promulgated the New Mass he “gave sentence” and guaranteed its validity. When, in his discourse of 19 November 1969, he claimed that it expresses Catholic Eucharistic teaching more clearly than the Tridentine Mass, he expressed an opinion. An opinion, even the opinion of the Sovereign Pontiff, deserves respect only to the extent to which it corresponds with reality.

The new sacramental rites promulgated since the Second Vatican Council can be seen as a paradigm of the Divine and human aspects of the Church. Pope Paul VI displayed lamentable human weakness in agreeing to replace rites whose origin is lost in the mists of Christian antiquity by the artificially concocted creations of commitee advised by Protestants. The Divine nature of the Church, and the practical application of the doctrine of indefectibility, can be seen in the fact that the new rites are undoubtedly valid and convey the same sacramental grace as those that they have replaced, but which, we must hope, will be restored one day. Acceptance of the doctrine of indefectibility by no means precludes our working and praying for this end.

In his Motu Proprio “Ecclesia Dei” of 2 July 1988, Pope John Paul II required the implementation of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for the rightful aspirations “of those Catholic faithful attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition.” The Motu Proprio was soon implemented by authorizing the use of all the pre-conciliar sacramental rites by such orders as the Fraternity of St. Peter or the Benedictine Monks of Le Barroux, and so it is now beyond doubt that both the pre-and post-conciliar rites coexist within the Roman Rite. This must be regarded as no more than an interim measure in the process of their total restoration.

In his encyclical ‘Iucanda Sane’ commemorating the thirteenth centenary of the death of St. Gregory the Great, Pope St. Pius X wrote:

Never throughout the course of the ages has supernatural power been lacking in the Church; never have the promises of Christ failed. They remain as powerful today as when they filled the heart of Gregory with consolation. Rather, having withstood the test of time and the change of circumstances and events, they possess even greater assurance.

+++++++ end quotes +++++++++++++

http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/melchisedech.htm#CONTENTS

About Jimmy Akin

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant pastor or seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith. Eventually, he was compelled in conscience to enter the Catholic Church, which he did in 1992. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is a Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to This Rock magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."

Comments

Post a Comment

Posted by MK on Friday, Jun 10, 2011 1:00 AM (EDT):

“Here is where the argument gets interesting: In order to be pope, under current canon law, one must be elected by the college of cardinals. In order to be a member of the college of cardinals, one must be appointed by the pope. In order for the pope to appoint you, he must be alive.”

I have a question about this part. Obviously sedevacantists are going to reject the 1983 Code as well. Is the requirement the same in the 1917 Code? I assume it is, but I haven’t read the relevant sections.

Posted by Phil on Friday, Jun 10, 2011 1:03 AM (EDT):

I can’t argue with your logic on this one Jimmy. As always, very thorough.

http://holymotherchurch.blogspot.com

Posted by RMMT on Friday, Jun 10, 2011 1:25 AM (EDT):

Perhaps this is irrelevant to this particular conversation—much of which, I admit, seems over my head—but how do sedevacantists explain all the saints canonized in the last 50 years? Are they false saints? Are the miracles attributed to them not through the will of God? How can someone like JPII canonize and beatify so many faithful Christian witnesses if they weren’t actually faithful Christian witnesses? Just curious…

Posted by Felix Culpa on Friday, Jun 10, 2011 9:39 AM (EDT):

@RMMT makes a good point ...these sedevacantists are really cerebrumnons disguised as Catholics.

Posted by Greg on Friday, Jun 10, 2011 10:42 AM (EDT):

Jimmy,

You mention “under current canon law, one must be elected by the college of cardinals”

Most sedevcantists also feel that the current canon law is invalid as well. What was the old way of becoming a cardinal and or pope. Say under the 1916 Code?

Posted by bob cratchit on Friday, Jun 10, 2011 11:11 AM (EDT):

Funny, this is one of the thoughts that always came to my mind when I was part of a sedevacante group, “would there ever be a Pope’ and ‘would my kids ever experience the legitimate magesterium”?. I even asked the “bishop” and some of the older people there; “how do we ever have a pope again since there were no longer validly elected cardinals alive, according to this pseudo-philosophy?” I did get some interesting answers including the one about a “secret” conclave that “may” have been held that you mentioned above. Another question I proposed was, Pope John XXIII would have been validly elected, as would have Pope Paul VI, could they have concecrated valid Cardinals before there “fall into heresy”? The “bishop” acknowledged my question but really didn’t offer me any consolation other than, that, we are in very confusing and troubling times. Eventually the obvious end (thanks St. Thomas) to this kind of thinking became blatantly obvious.They will fizzle out.I have since repented and confessed my errors and am now back on the Church. One sad side note, many of the children who are raised in this, sedevacantism, leave the church when they are adults. SOme embrase paganism and other things.

Posted by Tim on Friday, Jun 10, 2011 11:14 AM (EDT):

sedevacantist=anarchist

Posted by Rob on Friday, Jun 10, 2011 2:53 PM (EDT):

I don’t think the sedevacantist is in a tough spot with option 2 (a different way of electing a pope). Granted that most sedevacantists probably wouldn’t argue this way, there’s still the relatively easy out of pointing to all the other ways popes have been installed over the centuries: named by his predecessor, appointed by the emperor, or selected by the nobles of Rome. It wouldn’t have to match the historical examples perfectly, either: just pointing to non-conclave precedent seems to be enough to get out of this jamb.

Posted by Magistra Bona on Friday, Jun 10, 2011 3:15 PM (EDT):

The aim of all current schismatics and sedevacantists is to avoid having anything to do with the Church that is the true Body of Christ. Imagine not wanting to be associated with the 1.6 billion members of That Body! Well, the Devil would like that. Schimatics will twist their minds and those of their followers into believing utter garbage, some probably including a journey to the mothership, rather than change with the Church. They believe that the post-VII changes were wrong. Vatican II did not offer tons of change, but bishops, theologians, and individual priests and nuns on the shop floor did. The faithful judge things by what they experience on the shop floor—not at the Vatican. And, for those whose sensibilities were outraged, the idea that all of this illegitimate change is a result of having no valid Peter is very attractive. But just because you’re uncomfortable does not make the Church wrong. If you’ve been told to obey your whole life, then it is hard to challenge illegitimate changes that one sees on the shop floor. Retreat, withdrawal, and isolation are easier. Schismatics and sedevacantists are cowards, plain and simple. It’s more comfortable to believe delusions than the truth. God bless the Sovereign Pontiff, Benedict XVI!

Posted by Paul Hughes on Friday, Jun 10, 2011 3:51 PM (EDT):

Dear Jimmy,

I do not think that you can make a case that this canon was only referring to a “precept” of divine law rather than an “efficacious” promise on the part of the Lord. This is because the promise “the gates of hell will not prevail” and “I will be with you all days” have never been understood otherwise.

There is no commentary by a Catholic exegete, or theologian who ever stated that the meaning of the Lord’s words are “Well I will that there will always be a rock upon which the Church is built——until there isn’t a rock anymore.”

I do not think that bringing up the ideas about the primordial Will of God and the consequent Will of God are relevant to this particular question.

God Bless

Paul

Posted by Marion on Friday, Jun 10, 2011 4:06 PM (EDT):

When are you people going to get it? Will you ever learn? Do you even care about these people? Do you have any idea of how many sedevacantists you have already lost who were thinking of returning to the Church by your antics? You will not touch the hardened heart of a sedevacantist with ridicule (such as: “these sedevacantists are really cerebrumnons disguised as Catholics.” Really kind and charitable that. Way to go!! Or this gem: “Schismatics and sedevacantists are cowards, plain and simple.”) or posting a picture like the one accompanying this article (really, Jimmy, don’t you know any better?) Do you truly care about them? They are, after all, your brothers and sisters in the Faith who deserve your prayers and kindness more than your “separated brethren” who are not members of the household of the Faith. And there, but for the grace of God, goes any one of you. Let he who thinks he stands take heed, lest he fall.
With having said that, in answer to your question, Jimmy, no. You will not win a recruit with your present argument. You will have to prove to them that what they see as heresy is not. According to them, the Vatican II popes were never eligible for the papacy to begin with because they were already heretics before their election. If you can convince them that these men were and are not heretics, you will win them. But you won’t do that without first softening their hearts. Ridicule and tin-foil hat group shots won’t do the trick.

Posted by Marion on Friday, Jun 10, 2011 4:15 PM (EDT):

One more comment. Most sedevacantists would never go so far as to elect a pope.

Posted by JMJ on Friday, Jun 10, 2011 5:28 PM (EDT):

Come Holy Spirit and touch all of our hearts, especially those that are called “Catholic”, Amen. +JMJ+

Posted by Magistra Bona on Friday, Jun 10, 2011 5:50 PM (EDT):

For Marion: Jimmy’s article may intend to answer sedevacantists with the result that they will return to the Church. I do not know if that is the motivation behind his articles. The fact that sedevacantists are outside of the Church, in schism and hardened in it, means they have allied themselves with the enemies of the Church. They do not want to be considered brothers and sisters of Novus Ordo scum like the 1.6 billion of your real brothers and sisters. If I and others are hard on them, it’s because they are so hard-headed that even the most cogent or coaxing arguments won’t work. Even Christ told us not to cast our pearls before swine. And, it’s important that anyone thinking of going that way, stop, think, and weigh the spiritual danger before letting sentimentalism wash away good sense. The problem is not in the head, but in the heart. The schismatic does not want to obey. A schismatic can never be convinced of their wrong by logical arguments or molly-coddling. The last two Popes, for the sake of a Rite that is the heritage of all Catholics, opened dialogue with them. They take the liberty offered, but do not embrace the Council that first enunciated their right to religious liberty. Shall the Church abandon her just perogatives to please a small minority of people who hate Her anyway? Putting too much energy into the enemies of the Church is wasteful. The Church’s healthy limbs come first. God needs to reach the dissenters somehow. A tumble from a horse on the way to Damascus has shown promise in the past. And the only sacramental way back for a schismatic is on his/her knees. When you are in schism, the way back is through the confessional—FIRST. They must admit they are wrong, feel contrition for the wrong, and ask for forgiveness. Not happenin’ yet, huh?

Posted by Marion on Friday, Jun 10, 2011 6:50 PM (EDT):

Magistra Bona, stop with the rationalizations.
Let me ask you something. Is this the way you think of Protestants, Moslems and Jews? No, right? You would probably bend over backwards to be nice to them.

“Putting too much energy into the enemies of the Church is wasteful.”

Wow! That line says it all. If I may make a suggestion, sit before the Blessed Sacrament and ponder your attitude. While you’re at it, thank God that He doesn’t treat and regard you in the same manner as you regard the “enemies of the Church”. He had a few things to say about how one should treat their enemies, didn’t He? Perhaps you should spend some time reviewing the Gospels as well.

Posted by Dan on Friday, Jun 10, 2011 6:53 PM (EDT):

Magistra, we must still care for their souls, just as we would any enemy of the Church, with prayer and devotion, for this was the commandment of Christ: love thy enemy. And what about our Lord’s words, those who are not against us, are with us? Perhaps you have had a much different experience, but despite their schism from the true sacramental life of the Church, I would not call them my enemy, in the sense you mean it, i.e. Satan.

Sedevacantism is a tragedy for all involved, because it deprives the Holy Church of souls who, by God’s grace, are constantly being called back to usher in the kingdom. I know some people in SPX, and they are no less human than you or I. They hold fast to tradition and frankly, we need them back to reverse many of the liturgical abuses which have indeed occurred since Vatican II.

Mary, Helper of Christians, please pray for our unity.

Posted by Dan on Friday, Jun 10, 2011 6:57 PM (EDT):

Also, the tin foil image really is uncalled for. Where is the dignity and respect that our brothers and sisters deserve? We should be converting them with love, not flippancy.

Posted by MM on Friday, Jun 10, 2011 7:49 PM (EDT):

I’m not Catholic. However the picture provided at the top of the article is such a blatant attempt to ridicule and mock sedevacantists that I would not take the rest of the article seriously. It makes you seem petty, Mr Akin. Let your argument rest on it’s own merits.

Posted by KB on Friday, Jun 10, 2011 8:11 PM (EDT):

I have listened to the arguments of sedevacantists but your arrogance and pride make you seem not even remotely worth listening to. I’ll have to look for the voice of “your side” in someone a little more humble and less rude and mocking.

And I am a faithful Catholic who has only attended NO masses. But the heresy, liturgical abuses and irreverence found in many NO masses are making me rethink the NO as an option for my family. Thanks for making my decision a little easier!

Posted by martin (the sinner) on Friday, Jun 10, 2011 8:46 PM (EDT):

Yep, you used the wrong cannon law, you should’ve used the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law. You really have to get into a different state of mind when practicing apologetics with sedevacantists.

@KB the personal character of the person making an argument is not to be considered when analyzing the argument, that is a separate matter in and of itself. This particular fallacy is named “ad hominem” or “to the man.” This is similar to the teaching that an unworthy minister (priest) does confect valid sacraments (ex opere operato) despite his unworthiness.

peace

Posted by KB on Friday, Jun 10, 2011 8:53 PM (EDT):

I just wasn’t able to find a real argument under all that tin foil.

Posted by John Church on Friday, Jun 10, 2011 11:54 PM (EDT):

There is something to be said for clarity in truth. I dare say it was not found in this article. All the vaccilations and layer upon layer of conditions to make the words dance to your position demonstrates the weakness of your argument.

Posted by Brenda on Saturday, Jun 11, 2011 12:38 AM (EDT):

With almost every sedevancantist that I’ve conversed with online over the years, I’ve noticed a common trait. They seem to have real issues with Trust and/or Faith. In my view, the Lord has given us the papacy to help guide us through our spiritual lives here on earth and to keep us on the narrow path. Anti-papists are almost always ‘individualistic’ and ‘independent’ thinkers. There is nothing wrong with using our intellect to find God, but true faith is at the heart level. It seems without exception, those who reject whom the Church calls Pope, are those who feel they would have made a different decision . . . for whatever reason. They have difficulty submitting to other human beings placed in position of authority over them. That is why I say it is a Trust issue—- which ultimately is a Heart Condition.

Posted by Marcus on Saturday, Jun 11, 2011 3:44 AM (EDT):

I doubt that Jimmy’s intent was to ridicule sedevacantists with the article image. It should be noted that Mel Gibson (depicted without tin foil hat) is himself a sedevacantist. Presumably this is why the image was chosen.

Posted by Maria Louisa on Saturday, Jun 11, 2011 7:52 AM (EDT):

Marcus, Mel Gibson and those close to him deny that he is a sedevacantist. His father is, as is widely known, but in my opinion, it is an error for us to assume that Mel Gibson is one as well, since it is not a light charge to make against someone. He is certainly a traditionalist, and while I doubt that Mr. Akin intended to mock or ridicule him, it does suggest that perhaps Mr. Akin failed to distinguish between traditionalists and sedevacantists? Even between SSPX and sedevacantists, there is a world of difference…

Posted by Maria Louisa on Saturday, Jun 11, 2011 7:57 AM (EDT):

Also (and perhaps this is a misreading on my part - I hope it is) it seems to me that some of the writers for this paper, particularly those who are converts from Evangelicalism (Mr. Akin and Mr. Shea), have a dislike for traditionalists which often comes across in their writing. It may be that they have had bad experiences, which is a pity, or it may be that traditionalists are so far from the sphere to which they are accustomed that it seems mad and problematic. But I cannot help but think that all orthodox Catholics, whether NO or traditonalist (or those in between), should work together and seek common ground. I don’t understand why (again, perhaps I am wrong in my perception) there seems to be a sense of mistrust aimed at traditionalists. They are often referred to in such terms that the impression one forms is that even outright heretics are to be prefered over a (non-sedevacantist, non-SSPX, in communion with the Pope) traditionalist!

Posted by Vermont Crank on Saturday, Jun 11, 2011 8:54 AM (EDT):

Mr. Akin is often kind to a fault and the picture chosen for this piece is apt.

I am rather less kind than Mr. Akin and I think that sedevacantism is pernicious protestantism for the morally craven.

At least Luther had the courage to declare that he stood outside the Church whereas those who have lost the Faith blame the loss of their Faith on others - The Pope, Vatican II, Fruits of Vatican II, etc etc

It really is a liberal tactic masquerading as traditionalism.

As for the putative doctrine that a Pope ceases being Pope if he is a manifest heretic is it they, the sedeva cantists, who have the authority to judge a Pope? Or would that judgement only be made after formal charges brought by, say, the College of Cardinals, and an Ecclesiastical Trial in which The Pope is found guilty of heresy and refuses to repent?

Or does some guy with access to the internet have that authority? If so, from whence, from whom, the authority?

Who died and made them Pope?

It has been more than one half of a century since Pope Pius XII died and sedevacantists, to remain sedes, must believe that The College of Cardinals, all 120 of them, presumably with the guidance of The Holy Ghost, have chosen five consecutive heretical Popes.

How is that malign ideological insanity vis a vis The Pope any different than the ideas of the 19th century Southern Baptists?

Jesus established His Church and sent The Holy Ghost upon it to teach it all truth and so sedes must believe that Jesus has abandoned his Spouse and lets her be ravaged and raped by Satan while the Holy Ghost stands idly by twiddling His thumbs.

They have to believe that Jesus did not keep His promises to be with His Church until the end of time; they have to believe that The Holy Ghost has failed and that now His Church teaches error.

Yes, sedevacantism is a morally pernicious ideology and one can not reason with an ideologue anymore than one can reason with one who suffers from delusions.

Only prayer can work.

Posted by Vermont Crank on Saturday, Jun 11, 2011 9:15 AM (EDT):

Dear Marion. I assue you have the best interests of sedevacantists in mind when you criticise others for an approach to them that is different than yours. And I am confident that you would not claim that your personal opinions on the manner of dealing with others is universally normative. And I am sure you would not claim that your concern for the souls of sedes is superior to that of Mr. Akin.

So, how about extending to Mr. Akin the presumption of good will?

As to the idea that there is only one morally right approach to those who, daily, assault and persecute Holy Mother Church, the actual ecclesiastical historical evidence is, in fact, just the opposite and so some could claim that the modern approach to those assaulting the Church is one tinged, if not suffused, with false compassion that does nobody any good.

Here is a link to a piece about how the early Saints dealt with individuals like the sedes:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/791782/posts

Posted by D.A. Howard on Saturday, Jun 11, 2011 10:38 AM (EDT):

Jim,

You cannot use the 1983 Code of Canon Law. According to Sedes, the valid papacy ended in 1962 with the death of Pius XII. You have to use the 1913 Code to be historically valid with your criticism.

Posted by Mary42 on Saturday, Jun 11, 2011 10:48 AM (EDT):

And Satan is applauding. “What a successful handiwork I have accomplished!!!!!!” My good people, the Church of Christ is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Jesus told His Apostles He will send them an Advocate who will guide them and remind them of all He had taught them. And Jesus did not teach everything to His Apostles about the Salvation Mystery. That was to be the work of the Holy Spirit indwelling in the Church, guiding her, revealing the right path to her through Divine Inspirations. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church remains unshaken, unerring in teaching, preaching and defending Jesus Christ, the Way, the Truth and the Life. She shall remain authentic in all her Teachings about Faith and Morals. But we must always remember Christ did say the powers of hell (from within and without) shall never prevail against His Church and He shall be with her until the End of Time. God never contradicts Himself. And unlike Satan,the Father of Lies, He is Truth Itself. Just read and digest the wonderful Merciful Message Jesus has brought us specifically for these confusing difficult times - through St. Faustina - the Eucharistic Apostle of His Divine Mercy in her Diary - “Divine Mercy in My Sou” and doubt no more. Anyone with genuine doubt, and who is willing to find the Truth, will be guided by the Holy Spirit to remain faithful to Christ’s Church, obeying the Power of the Keys that governs the Church through St. Peter and his Successors in an unbroken line until the End of Time. We now have his current Sucessor, the Spirit-filled Pope Benedict XVI. + Laudetur Iesus Christus +

Posted by Larry Bartlett on Saturday, Jun 11, 2011 11:12 AM (EDT):

Mr Akin is one of my favorites and I usually enjoy his articles. Havin said that: @ Vermont Crank: I could not agree with you more.

Posted by Rod on Saturday, Jun 11, 2011 1:15 PM (EDT):

Boy, this is the kind of stuff that keeps the folk who are looking for The True Faith away from it!! Habemus Papam! and let us be done! You can’t ditch the Church just because the Council you are attending isn’t going IN YOUR FAVOUR! there were lots of people who were disgruntled by other Councils and they didn’t….. uh…. ya I guess they did actually.. ditch the Pope! The Sedevacantists are barking, but in this world of relative morality and libertinism, who hears them, or the Orthodox Catholic for that matter? I like Michael Voris’ remark, that there is an Online Parish out in Cyberland that is not putting up with either the S.V.‘s or the raving Libertines! Yet, I think that the Article really opens the eyes of those of us (here in Western Canada) who never hear any of this stuff to the fact that there are Brothers and Sisters who are really hurting and are struggling with the strange behaviour of many of our clergy and theologians! On the stet we see the effects of the moral breakdown of our Society. We see abject poverty, homelessness and untreated mental illness. We live in a society that is becoming more and more uncaring and suicidal.. I mean that we are willing to do away with our children for the sake of convenience or racial cleansing! Seems to me that if we as Christians fight over the place of the Paten at High Mass or the validity of any Ordo Missae we lose the souls that Jesus sent us to tend! Yesterday’s Gospel: Peter do you love me more than these.. “These” are not the folk on the street, “These” are the argumentative, zealous and fire invoking Apostles.. If you love me more than they: Feed my lambs!, my Sheep and my Flock! The word Jesus used was Feed, not Govern, not Rule, but Feed and Ten. Pardon and Old MAn who came to the Church a long time ago, when there was even more strife, to say that we need to get out the Honey Pot and start attracting bees! the Gate of Hell aren’t going to get us.. the rule of Satan has been conquered. “Christ is risen from the Dead, trampling Death by death, and to those in the Tombs he has given Life!” If we take that mind, then there is a Pope, there is a Church, and She idling just fine.. We have Martyrs giving their lives in the Middle East, we have New Communities springing up and we have a beautiful Pope, who is not afraid to stare the Lion in the mouth and tell him he is wrong! Alleluia, I say, Alleluia! the Church of today is the Church I sought for so many years. 40 years in I find that She is again coming into Her Own! Habemus Papam, and Bonus Pastor he is too! We can argue, but let’s love him in the Name of Christ, whose place he holds in hic lacrimarum vale!

Posted by Rod on Saturday, Jun 11, 2011 1:18 PM (EDT):

My auto spell has made some humorous suggestions.. I apologize!

Posted by Father Anthony Cekada on Saturday, Jun 11, 2011 2:40 PM (EDT):

As a sedevacantist, I greatly appreciated the fair tone of Mr. Akin’s article. I was also pleased that he made a real effort to understand our position and how we might respond to various objections.

He is right to advise people against using the “perpetual successors” argument. His take on it is correct, and I’ve often pointed out to opponents in debates that it doesn’t mean what they think it means.

It’s nice to hear someone else make the same argument!

Briefly, as regards the question “Where would we get another pope?” there are three schools of thought among sedes: (1) Direction divine intervention (mentioned in the writings of some approved mystics) (2) The “material-formal” thesis of Guérard des Lauriers (a post-Vatican II pope renounces V2 and automatically becomes a true pope. (3) An imperfect general council (the teaching of some theologians who considered the question of what would happen if the College of Cardinals became extinct)

Each, admittedly, presents difficulties. But to my way of thinking, the mere existence of difficulties about the future would not automatically turn Paul VI and his successors into true popes by default.

With sedevacantism, one of my colleagues pointed out, you may end up in mystery— but at least you don’t end up in contradiction.

Thank you again for the well thought out article.

Posted by Marion on Saturday, Jun 11, 2011 2:51 PM (EDT):

“I assue you have the best interests of sedevacantists in mind when you criticise others for an approach to them that is different than yours. And I am confident that you would not claim that your personal opinions on the manner of dealing with others is universally normative. And I am sure you would not claim that your concern for the souls of sedes is superior to that of Mr. Akin.”
What’s your approach? Ridicule, insults and tin foil hat group shots? Tell me, how many have you brought into the Church with your “approach”? You’re a smooth one. Have you attended those seminars that train you how to respond to people?
Sorry, I find it hard to attach any good will to Jimmy Akin. He’s too smart and he’s no ones fool, but he does know who butters his bread.
Don’t put words in my mouth, and you know quite well that I did not make any claim of superior whatever you drivel you wrote. I was simply hoping to reach some of you, thinking that you had an ounce of humility somewhere to be able to recognize what you are doing. But, no.
Continue alienating them. As I wrote, I know more than one who, by your utterly vicious behavior, turned them back away from the Church. The only thing you accomplished was once again reinforcing them in their errors and hardening their hearts even more. When you stand before Our Lord, you will have to answer to Him for it.
If you find my posts vehement, that is because I have been watching this go on for years now, and I can no longer keep silent. This article with the accompanying picture was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Posted by Marion on Saturday, Jun 11, 2011 2:54 PM (EDT):

I’d like to clarify my last sentence: it wasn’t the article that set me off, but the picture and many of the comments.

Posted by Rick on Saturday, Jun 11, 2011 3:01 PM (EDT):

Your analysis in Canon Law is mistaken.

You wrote, “Since the time of Vatican I the canonical penalty of anathema ... has been abolished…,” but the Code of Canon Law of 1917 STILL provided the penalty of Anathema in can. 2257, par. 2 of CIC.

Rick

Posted by Fr. Paul L. Berschied on Saturday, Jun 11, 2011 3:18 PM (EDT):

I am only a simple priest. But, I love the Church - Scripture and Tradition. Christ said He would be with us until the end of time and Peter would be His Vicar. History has proven this to be true. Anti-popes have always been, but the real problems were actually of short reign, and one -who may have been valid- resigned for the good of the Church. Since then we have been well taken care of. Anyone who denies the obvious sanctity and protection of JXXIII and JPII by Christ and Mary needs to pray. My degree in dogmatic theology taught me the Councils have never taught heresy. Implementation by some may have been badly done, but in the words of one cardinal “My friends if the hierarchy has not been able to destroy the Church in over 2000 years, how can we not believe in Her Divine Protection and manifest expression as the True Body of Christ. Another quote: To those who have faith, no explanation is necessary. To those who do not, no explanation will suffice. Faith is the intellectual assent to the will of God. Let us pray diligently on Pentecost that those who have vacated the Church will return through the grace of the Holy Spirit. AMDG

Posted by Marion on Saturday, Jun 11, 2011 3:37 PM (EDT):

Fr. Paul L. Berschied, thank you.

Posted by Vermont Crank on Saturday, Jun 11, 2011 4:38 PM (EDT):

Dear Marion. I was not surprised to read your angry response.

It is often the case that those who demand of others that they deal in kindness when responding to those who daily launch invective after calumny against our Sweet Jesus on Earth are quite personally abrasive, negative, and vituperative when dealing with those who do maintain the Bonds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine, and Authority.

Too often, one could draw the conclusion from this frequently observable practice that one will be treated with more kindness is he daily accuses the Pope of being a heretic; and accuses the Council of teaching error; and accuses the Church of having no Apostolic Secession; and accuses the Church of having no Mass because there are no validly ordained Priests because there are no validly ordained Bishops etc etc

I disagree with your assessment of Mr. Akin. If you can find one example of Mr. Akin acting with malign intent, you’ll have yourself a real scoop,sister.

Posted by Vermont Crank on Saturday, Jun 11, 2011 5:02 PM (EDT):

Dear Fr. Cekada. Can you source even one substantive bit of evidence from even one single Magisterial Source that teaches what you hold to be true?

Of course, that is a rhetorical question. You can not do it. And neither can any other individual who holds to your ideological position.

One can cite the personal opinion of this, that, or the other, theologian or mystic but the personal opinions of this, that, or the other theologian or mystic are not part of The Magisterium and it is self-evident that they could never be part of The Magisterium.

The idea that Holy Mother Church might experience the election of five consecutive heretical Popes is an idea a galactic distance from sanity.

Dear Fr. Even if you, personally, as an ordained Priest, think that Pope Benedict XVI is a heretic, you still must be obedient to him; just as you were required to be obedient to Pope blessed John XXIII; just as you were required to be obedient to Pope Paul VI;just as you were required to be obedient to Pope John Paul I; and just as you were required to be obedient to Pope Blessed John Paul II.

Even of you could prove to the entire world that Pope Benedict XVI is in league with Satan and was intent on doing Satan’s will, he would still have authority.

++++++++++++++ begin quotes+++++++++++++++++

Council of Constance…

in our times, however, that old and jealous foe has stirred up new conflicts so that the approved ones of this age may be made manifest. Their leader and prince was that pseudo-christian John Wyclif. He stubbornly asserted and taught many articles against the christian religion and the catholic faith while he was alive. We have decided that forty-five of the articles should be set out on this page as follows…

8. . If a pope is foreknown as damned and is evil, and is therefore a limb of the devil, he does not have authority over the faithful given to him by anyone, except perhaps by the emperor.

++++++++++ end quotes++++++++++++++++

Dear Fr. Even if you think Pope Benedict XI is a heretic, according to The Bible, according to The Church/Magisterium, and according to Tradition, he has authority over me and thee.

Posted by Marion on Saturday, Jun 11, 2011 5:03 PM (EDT):

“If you find my posts vehement, that is because I have been watching this go on for years now, and I can no longer keep silent. This article with the accompanying picture was the straw that broke the camel’s back.”

VermontCrank, perhaps you didn’t read my entire post, so I included the pertinent part above.
I’ve said all I have to say and will not be responding to any more of your posts or any others.

Posted by Larry Bartlett on Saturday, Jun 11, 2011 5:12 PM (EDT):

@ vermont crank: Once again I could not agree with you more. How does one stay a priest who thinkd the pope a heritic?

Posted by Larry Bartlett on Saturday, Jun 11, 2011 5:13 PM (EDT):

sorry about the misspelling

Posted by Vermont Crank on Saturday, Jun 11, 2011 5:34 PM (EDT):

Dear Mr. Bartlett. Having received Holy Orders, a man is always a Priest.

Of course, it is Tradition that it is a grave sin to cultivate opposition and enmity against Our Sweet Jesus on Earth and so I simply am at a loss of what to write to a Priest like Fr Cekada who writes this about Pope Benedict XVI:

+++++ begin quote ++++++++++++++++

“...Now, since a sedevacantist is a traditionalist who has concluded that Benedict XVI is a heretic and not a true pope, his first instinct is to seek out a traditional Latin Mass offered by a sedevacantist priest, and to avoid traditional Masses where the priest refers to Benedict XVI as a pope. To act otherwise seems con- tradictory or somehow “feels” wrong for the sedeva- cantist, even though he may not necessarily be able to
articulate any theological reasons or arguments for what he does.

He has read or heard the stories of countless early martyrs who chose horrible deaths, rather than offer even one grain of incense in tribute to the false, ecu-menical religion of the Roman emperor. So better to avoid altogether the Masses of priests who, through the una cum, offer a grain of incense to the heresiarch Ratzinger and his false ecumenical religion…”

+++ end quotes +++++++++

As I say, Sedevacantist Ideology is not susceptible to change by the use of reason or fact. Prayer alone is the response - along with warning others about their pernicious ideology.

It is helpful to remember that in the entire 2000+ years of Ecclesiastical History there has never been an Saint who was a sedevacantist…and as for the idea that Sedevacantists are Traditionalists, please. Sedevacantism is not even an entry in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia.

Sedevacantism is an odd form of modernism as can easily be seen by the fact that a sedevacantist can not honestly speak the Oath Against Modernism because he does not believe in a Church that does not teach error.

As a movement, Sedevacantism stretches all the way back to the 1970s

Posted by Father Anthony Cekada on Saturday, Jun 11, 2011 6:36 PM (EDT):

Vermont Crank asked:
“Dear Fr. Cekada. Can you source even one substantive bit of evidence from even one single Magisterial Source that teaches what you hold to be true?”
——————
The general theological principle behind sedevacantism—that a pope who becomes a public heretic automatically loses office—was taught by nearly all the Catholic theologians who examined the question since St. Robert Bellarmine (who also taught it).

Moreover, at least two popes publicly admitted the possibility that a pope could become a heretic: Innocent III, who spoke of this in one of his coronation sermons, and Paul IV, in his Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, which pronounced void all the acts of a heretic who would be elected pope.

I have gathered many of these quotes here: http://www.traditionalmass.org/issues/#e

So yes, there’s plenty of substantive evidence for the general principle.

The sedevacantist position merely seeks to explain the mess in the post-Vatican II era. The argument can be summed up as follows:

1. Officially-sanctioned Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws embody errors and/or promote evil.

2. Because the Church is indefectible, her teaching cannot change, and because she is infallible, her laws cannot give evil.

3. It is therefore impossible that the errors and evils officially sanctioned in Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws could have proceeded from the authority of the Church.

4. Those who promulgate such errors and evils must somehow lack real authority in the Church.

5. Canonists and theologians teach that defection from the faith, once it becomes manifest, brings with it automatic loss of ecclesiastical office (authority). They apply this principle even to a pope who, in his personal capacity, somehow becomes a heretic. (See quotes at link above.)

6. Even popes have acknowledged the possibility that a heretic could one day end up on the throne of Peter. Paul IV decreed that the election of such a pope would be invalid, and that he would lack all authority. (See quotes at link above..)

7. Since the Church cannot defect but a pope as an individual can defect (as, a fortiori, can diocesan bishops), the best explanation for the post-Vatican II errors and evils we have catalogued is that they proceeded (proceed) from individuals who, despite their occupation of the Vatican and of various diocesan cathedrals, did (do) not objectively possess canonical authority.

One can argue, of course, that the errors in the official V2/post-V2 teachings are not real errors and that the evils in the official V2/post-V2 legislation are not real evils, but that is another discussion.

However. once you admit the existence of these errors or evils (as most traditionalists do), you have to deal with the question of the authority of those who promulgated them, and the issue of the infallibility/indefectibility of the Church.

I apologize for taking up so much space, but if you want to criticize the argument, you should at least try to understand it.

On that note, I will retire and wish you all a blessed Pentecost!

Posted by Vermont Crank on Saturday, Jun 11, 2011 7:10 PM (EDT):

Dear Fr.Cekada. I knew that you’d advance Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio as a source but that was a Disciplinary Document, not an infallible one.

http://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t256-cum-ex-apostolatus-officio

It is not included in Denziger’s, “The Sources of Catholic Dogma,” for example.

It is too bad you did not take the opportunity to respond to the Council of Constance information I posted. Is that a Council you also reject? I have to ask because when he was the Prefect of The CDF, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger pointed-out that the person who rejects Vatican Two rejects the authority behind it which calls into question all the councils.

. St Robert Bellarmine’s theological speculation was not Baptised by the Church and Garrigou-Lagrange specifically refuted some of his points - but all of that is irrelevant because theological speculation by even the greatest of Theologians is not a Teaching of The Church despite your insinuation it is.

It is doctrinally ineluctable that all Ecumenical Councils are infallible by their nature and an Ecumenical Council can not teach error but you contend that iVatican Two does.

As to your point #5 that Canonists and Theologians teach thus and such, please Fr,. Canonists and Theologians, unless they are The Pope or a Bishop in union with the Pope have no teaching authority.

How sad it is that you claim they teach while at the same time rejecting the Pope and the Bishops who are in union with him.

And just because one disagrees with you is no indication he does not understand your position

Posted by Vermont Crank on Saturday, Jun 11, 2011 7:22 PM (EDT):

One last post today. A link to a refutation of sedevacantism by Dr Salza

http://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t253-sedevacantists-are-schismatic-and-excommunicated

Posted by K C Thomas on Sunday, Jun 12, 2011 7:36 AM (EDT):

It is not good to trouble the readers by just saying the the image typed is not same as shown Please please do not harass the readers

Posted by Vermont Crank on Sunday, Jun 12, 2011 8:42 AM (EDT):

Sedevacantism, again, refuted.

http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/church/insan_o_sed1.htm

On this great Feast of Pentecost how ironic it is that sedevacantists clerics will have to deal with the Holy Ghost being sent upon the Church to teach her all truth until the end of time…well, no, not until the end of time; only until the death of Pope Pius XII whose death is coterminus with the end of the age of The Holy Ghost.

Wow

Posted by Mary42 on Sunday, Jun 12, 2011 11:45 AM (EDT):

Thank you, Vermont Crank on your Post above. It is sad that those who have sworn to remain in error cannot recognize the Truth no matter how clear it is to everyone else and the facts are so explicit. And you are so right when you state The Holy Ghost was sent upon the Church to teach her all truth until the end of time. This is the Truth of the Feast we have just celebrated to-day. And thank you, Fr.Cakada for emphatically reiterating that it is doctrinally ineluctable that all Ecumenical Councils are infallible by their nature and an Ecumenical Council - Vatican II included - can not teach Error. Surely, if Pope Pius XII was the last “valid” Pope - according to these heretics - can someone explain to us the what they think about the Prophetic Fatima Document officially released to the Universal Church by the Holy See on the 13th of May - the 30th Anniversary of the attempted assassination of Blessed Pope John Paul II and the 94th Anniversary of the 1st Fatima Apparition? If anyone is seeking the proof of the validity of the unbroken Succession of the See of Peter, it is contained in the 3rd Secret of Fatima. Blessed Pope John Paul II brought down Communism which Our Lady had warned would destroy humanity unless devout Catholics and people of goodwill prayed. People prayed and Communism was demolished and our soon-to-be Saint John Paul II did not die but was saved by the intervention of Our Lady of Fatima. Let us reject these heretics calling themselves Sedevacantists who are Disciples of the Evil One.

Posted by Vermont Crank on Sunday, Jun 12, 2011 1:18 PM (EDT):

The Catholic Encyclopedia ain’t too impressed with Pope Paul IV yet he is the default Pope for those trying to suggest his Cum ex Apostolatus Officio Disciplinary act is binding doctrine as regards their irrational claim tha the Popes since the death of Pius XII are all heretics and therefore not real Popes - even though that Document is not mentioned in The Catholic Encyclopedia or Denziger’s “Sources of Catholic Dogma.”

Pope Paul IV is cited in Neuner, SJ and Dupuis, SJ, “The Christian Faith,” but not for the unfortunate Document Fr Cekada sources for the putative support for Sedevacantism. ” That is nowhere to be found

Cum Quorumdam Hominum, is cited; and that is the only one cited, and it has zip to do with sedevacantsim.

Even IF that were binding doctrine, there is dispute amongst many theologians as to what it truly means. And when there is dispute over Doctrine, who is it that settles that dispute with authority? The very Catholic Church that sedes claim is heretical.

Here is the link to The Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11581a.htm

The idea that a crucial binding “doctrine” the sedevacantists seek to use to justify their loss of Faith would end-up being nowhere to be found in the standard reference texts reveals just how insane ideological sedevacantism is.

I pity any priest who thinks that we have had no Pope since 1958; who thinks an Ecumenical Council taught heresy;who thinks we have no Cardinals; who thinks we have no Bishops; who thinks we have no Mass; who thinks we have no sacraments; ford have mercy in those who have totally lost the Faith.

I could suggest that in 1958 The Holy Ghost took early retirement and be no more outrageous in my claims than those who think the Catholic Church has defected; that is, who believe that The Catholic Church is not indefectible.

Posted by Father Anthony Cekada on Sunday, Jun 12, 2011 4:35 PM (EDT):

Folks, I really didn’t expect to argue the whole sedevacantist case here. I merely wanted to compliment Mr. Akin for taking the time to present it fairly and for trying to understand it.
As regards a few of Vermont Crank’s points:
(1) The Denzinger is not an official source; it’s merely a private collection.
(2) Cum ex Apostolatus IS indeed in an official collection: the Fontes Juris Canonici for the 1917 Code. Paragraphs 3 and 6 of the Bull (the latter of which prescribes that the heretic pope loses his office) are cited as the source for canon 188.4, which prescribes that any ecclesiastical office automatically becomes vacant without the need for any declaration if an office-holder “publicly defects from the Catholic faith.”
(3) The Council of Constance quote refers to a pope who is MORALLY evil (wine, women and song) not one who is a HERETIC (publicly denies or doubts an article of faith).
(4) If your appeal to Garrigou is based on the SSPX/CFN article, you should know that the citation is fraudulent. The passage in the original refers to the case of a pope who is an OCCULT heretic (lapsis in haeresim occultam), not a pope who is a PUBLIC heretic.
(5) You can find my answer to Salza’s latest article at:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/blog/2011/04/11/salza-on-sedevacantism-same-old-fare/
(6) I notice that Vermont Crank links to pages of Feeney supporters, who of course reject the teachings of theologians about baptism of desire/blood and insist that if something is not solemnly defined, a Catholic is free to reject it.
For a refutation of that idea and a discussion of the importance of the teachings of approved theolotgians, see: http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf
No wonder he tries to blow off Bellarmine and subsequent theologians on the question of a heretical pope!
My point is simple: the underlying principle behind sedevacantism — that a heretical pope automatically loses his office — was indeed the common teaching of pre-Vatican II dogmatic theologians and canonists. And this teaching is contained in works praised by the popes themselves. St. Pius X, for instance, wrote a preface praising Wernz’s Jus Canonicum, which contains the teaching.
Moreover, as we have already pointed out. two popes, Innocent III and Paul VI, specifically admitted the possibility that a pope could become a heretic.
So the general principle to which sedevacantists appeal is “crazy” only if you can show that a whole lot of canonists and theologians, together with two popes, were also crazy.
Be that as it may, though, I REALLY enjoyed the photo with the kids in the tinfoil hats!

Posted by Father Anthony Cekada on Sunday, Jun 12, 2011 4:43 PM (EDT):

“Moreover, as we have already pointed out. two popes, Innocent III and Paul VI, specifically admitted the possibility that a pope could become a heretic.”
Uh, Paul IV, that is.
The typo would be too good to be true!

Posted by Servus on Sunday, Jun 12, 2011 5:32 PM (EDT):

The grace of God seems to be flowing around here, Fr. Anthony Cekada obviously knows what he is talking about.
Thank you for clearing some things up. This site helps.
http://holyromancatholicchurch.org/

Posted by Contradictorius on Sunday, Jun 12, 2011 9:31 PM (EDT):

To the Reverend Father Cekada,

“A posse ad esse non valet illatio”—

Name ONE heresy which Pope Benedict XVI committed which precludes him from assuming the throne.

Thank you.
Contradictorius

Posted by Father Anthony Cekada on Monday, Jun 13, 2011 8:22 AM (EDT):

CONTRADICTORIUS said:
“A posse ad esse non valet illatio”—
“Name ONE heresy which Pope Benedict XVI committed which precludes him from assuming the throne.”
++++++
Frankenchurch.
This is a heresy in ecclesiology — the branch of theology that deals with the nature of the Church.
The heresy posits a “People of God” and a “Church of Christ” not identical with the Roman Catholic Church and broader than it — a Frankenchurch created from “elements” of the true Church that are possessed either “fully” (by Catholics) or “partially” (by heretics and schismatics).
Cardinal Ratzinger developed these ideas in the 1992 CDF Letter on “Communion,” the 2000 Declaration Dominus Jesus and other subsequent pronouncements.
Through contrary propositions, Frankenchurch denies an article of divine and Catholic faith: “I believe in ONE Church.”
The Church’s universal ordinary magisterium, speaking through pope after pope and theologian after theologian, has repeatedly explained exactly what this unity means: “The property of the Church by which, in the profession of faith, in governance and in worship, she is UNDIVIDED IN HERSELF AND SEPARATED FROM ANY OTHER.” (de Groot, Summa Apologetica, 153)
“The practice of the Church,” said Leo XIII, “has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as OUTSIDE CATHOLIC COMMUNION, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”
++++++
For articles that treat the topic in some detail, see:
“Resisting the Pope, Sedevacantism and Frankenchurch,” Section II.B
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=70&catname=10
“Communion: Ratzinger’s New Ecclesiology”
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/CommunArt.pdf
“Ratzinger’s Dominus Jesus: A Critical Analysis”
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=35&catname=15
“Ratzinger: 99% Protestant”
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=62&catname=15
“The New Ecclesiology: An Overview”
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=68&catname=15
“Ratzinger’s Subsistent Error”
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/SanbCDFcrit.pdf
++++++
The latter article by Bishop Donald Sanborn examines a 2007 CDF defense of the new ecclesiology, issued just three days after Summorum Pontificum.
The Vatican statement was intended to answer critics “from the right” who have been saying that the ecclesiology of Vatican II contradicts the teaching of the Catholic Church.
As far as I know, the only people “on the right” to criticize the new ecclesiology have been sedevacantists. Whether our criticisms were truly the occasion for the document is an issue for the Vaticanisti.
But the mere fact that such a document appeared showed that the Vatican is at least sensitive to the charge that the new ecclesiology represents “rupture.”
Combox exchanges are not a convenient forum for a substantive discussion of complex questions like these. The article links above, though, will at least provide Contradictorius and other readers with some idea of what sedevacantists mean when they speak of “heresy” in the post-Conciliar popes.

Posted by Vermont Crank on Monday, Jun 13, 2011 11:47 AM (EDT):

“(6) I notice that Vermont Crank links to pages of Feeney supporters, who of course reject the teachings of theologians about baptism of desire/blood and insist that if something is not solemnly defined, a Catholic is free to reject it.”

I also linked to pages I found at Mr. Sungenis’s site but because I link to a particular site does not mean I agree with all that is written/posted at that site. You your own self, cite from Popes even though you think we have not had a Pope since 1958.I posted a specific piece from that site by Dr Salza and so your response seems a bit superfluous.

As far as BOB and BOD, I accept both of those, as does Holy Mother Church, which has artwork hanging inside The Basilica of St Peter’s attesting to that truth.

“For a refutation of that idea and a discussion of the importance of the teachings of approved theologians,..”

Dear Father. That is an example of begging the question. Even if I were to grant, for the sake of argument, that you have a legitimate point, there are at least as many theologians (and every single living member of the Catholic Hierarchy, from Pope, to Cardinal, to Bishop) opposed to your ideology and so who settles the dispute? The Catholic Church you believe no longer to be in existence.

Well, that is sure a firm basis for Faith.

“No wonder he tries to blow off Bellarmine and subsequent theologians on the question of a heretical pope!
My point is simple: the underlying principle behind sedevacantism — that a heretical pope automatically loses his office — was indeed the common teaching of pre-Vatican II dogmatic theologians and canonists.”

No. It. Was. Not.

Dear Father. Lord have mercy. First, theological speculation is not a teaching until it is accepted/baptised by Holy Mother Church. Until such time, it remains theological speculation.

I know you know that prior to The Council of Trent The Angelic Doctor held that the long form of Consecration had to be used for the Confection of The Eucharist and the vast majority of Theologians agreed with him. So, what happened after Trent?

Holy Mother Church took the decision that was not the case and theologians changed their minds because Holy Mother Church had acted.

I am not going to respond to all of your attempts to try and make it appear that Sedevacantism is an ancient part of Tradition but I must respond to this:

” And this teaching is contained in works praised by the popes themselves. St. Pius X, for instance, wrote a preface praising Wernz’s Jus Canonicum, which contains the teaching.”

Are you trying to claim that Pope Saint Pius X personally held to a similar position that you have simply because he wrote a preface to a work that you say included such a teaching?

Please post the quote for all of us to read. I think that was very unfair to a great Pope to try and make it appear he agrees with you.

You claim to be a traditionalist and this morning you came into my mind as I read Dom Gueranger’s entry for today in, “The LIturgical Year.”

He was writing about “Whit Monday,” and in the section, “The Gift of Godliness,” he has this to say: “....the gift of godliness is infused into our souls by the Holy Ghost, in order that we may resist self-love, which is one of the passions of our fallen nature, and the second hindrance to our union with God. The heart of a Christian….His faith is unhesitating and fervent. Affectionately docile to the Church, he is always in the disposition of mind to abandon his most cherished ideas the moment he discovers them to be, in any way, out of harmony with her teaching or practice; for he has an instinctive horror of novelties and insubordination.”

Dear Father Ceekada. I plead with you to let The Holy Ghost soften your heart. It is an ontological impossibility that the Church established by Jesus The Christ could fall into error and teach heresy; it is an ontological impossibility that Cardinals of The Catholic Church could elect Five consecutive Heretical Popes; it is an ontological impossibility that Holy Mother Church could approve a Mass that was not a true sacrifice or would fail to confect the Holy Eucharist; it is an ontological impossibility that Holy Mother Church would cease to dispense the Sacraments.

Please, Father. None of this makes any sense and to try and suggest one must have some specialised knowledge to be aware that Holy Mother Church has suddenly, beginning in 1958, cease to exist as a visible perfect society is wildly irrational gnosis.

That is not how Our Triune God operates. That is how Satan operates. Jesus established His Church and promised to be with it until the end of time and He sent The Holy Ghost upon it to teach it all truth and He told the world, who hears you hears Me, and and it is literally madness to suggest that suddenly, beginning in 1958, every single one of the promises by Jesus were revealed to be lie.

Lord have Mercy. Father. That idea is worse that insanity. It is pure, undiluted evil.

Dear Father Cekada. It is not The Pope, and all of The Cardinals, and all of The Bishops, and all of the Priests who have totally severed the bonds of Tradition. It is you and the few who follow you.

Dear Father. Even if you do decide to continue in your belief in this most absurd of theories, I beg you to stop writing publicly. You are, obviously, a very intelligent, very well-educated, and very well-read Priest, and you will be able to convince the weakest among us to think that Holy Mother VChurch is now an evil enterprise and they may be tempted to join you on the path to perdition.

Please, Father Cekada, do not lead others into temptation and May God have Mercy on your soul.

Posted by Vermont Crank on Monday, Jun 13, 2011 12:10 PM (EDT):

“Frankenchurch.
This is a heresy in ecclesiology — the branch of theology that deals with the nature of the Church.
The heresy posits a “People of God” and a “Church of Christ” not identical with the Roman Catholic Church and broader than it — a Frankenchurch created from “elements” of the true Church that are possessed either “fully” (by Catholics) or “partially” (by heretics and schismatics).”

Wow. When Our Sweet Jesus is hauled into the abattoir of sedevactaism, the result is a bloody mess.

Frankenchurch?

Sedevacantists, those who hold that Catholic Church is run by a heretic and teaches heresy and taught heresy in the most recent Ecumenical Council, are now making sport of The Vicar of Christ?

Well, okay…but here is Dominus Iesus:

++++++++++ begin quotes+++++++++

“IV. UNICITY AND UNITY OF THE CHURCH

16. The Lord Jesus, the only Saviour, did not only establish a simple community of disciples, but constituted the Church as a salvific mystery: he himself is in the Church and the Church is in him (cf. Jn 15:1ff.; Gal 3:28; Eph 4:15-16; Acts 9:5). Therefore, the fullness of Christ’s salvific mystery belongs also to the Church, inseparably united to her Lord. Indeed, Jesus Christ continues his presence and his work of salvation in the Church and by means of the Church (cf. Col 1:24-27),47 which is his body (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Col 1:18).48 And thus, just as the head and members of a living body, though not identical, are inseparable, so too Christ and the Church can neither be confused nor separated, and constitute a single “whole Christ”.49 This same inseparability is also expressed in the New Testament by the analogy of the Church as the Bride of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-29; Rev 21:2,9).50

Therefore, in connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of the Church founded by him must be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: “a single Catholic and apostolic Church”.51 Furthermore, the promises of the Lord that he would not abandon his Church (cf. Mt 16:18; 28:20) and that he would guide her by his Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13) mean, according to Catholic faith, that the unicity and the unity of the Church — like everything that belongs to the Church’s integrity — will never be lacking.52

The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession53 — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ… which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth’ (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.54 With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.57

17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60”

++++++++++ end quotes +++++++++++++

I do not know abut any other living Catholic but his Christian Catholic can see that is perfectly in sync with Tradition and is, in fact, Tradition and the idea that it would makes sense for anyone to read an analysis by those who publicly judge The Vicar of Christ a heretic makes about as much sense as me contacting PETA to learn how to properly roast lamb.

Dear Father. I thank you. I do not think you realise the extent to which you have acted as a sapper against sedevacantism

Posted by Vermont Crank on Monday, Jun 13, 2011 12:23 PM (EDT):

From he whom the sedes judge a heretic:

“The Church is Catholic from her first moment, her universality is not the fruit of the successive inclusion of various communities. From the first instant, in fact, the Holy Spirit created her as the Church of all peoples; she embraces the entire world, she transcends all limits of race, class, nation; she breaks down every obstacle and brings all men together in the profession of the One and Triune God. From the beginning, the Church is One, Catholic, and Apostolic: this is her true nature and as such it must be recognized. She is Holy, not thanks to the ability of her members, but because God Himself, with His Spirit, creates, purifies, and sanctifies her always.”

Benedict XVI

Homily (Pentecost)

June 12, 2011

Posted by Dan on Monday, Jun 13, 2011 12:34 PM (EDT):

@Vermont Crank:
“It is an ontological impossibility that the Church established by Jesus The Christ could fall into error and teach heresy; it is an ontological impossibility that Cardinals of The Catholic Church could elect Five consecutive Heretical Popes; it is an ontological impossibility that Holy Mother Church could approve a Mass that was not a true sacrifice or would fail to confect the Holy Eucharist; it is an ontological impossibility that Holy Mother Church would cease to dispense the Sacraments.”

Amen, amen. Thank you for speaking the truth with love.

Posted by Servus on Monday, Jun 13, 2011 1:16 PM (EDT):

Well Dan you’ve done well, but you did not mention the conclusions. Here they are in CAPS. God Bless.
It is an ontological impossibility that the Church established by Jesus The Christ could fall into error and teach heresy; THEREFORE THE NOVUS ORDO IS NOT THE CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST BECAUSE IT DOES TEACH HERESY. It is an ontological impossibility that Cardinals of The Catholic Church could elect Five consecutive Heretical Popes; THEREFORE THESE “CARDNINALS” WERE NOT TRUE CATHOLICS BECAUSE THESE MEN DID ELECT 5 CONSECUTIVE HERETICAL POPES. It is an ontological impossibility that Holy Mother Church could approve a Mass that was not a true sacrifice or would fail to confect the Holy Eucharist; THEREFORE HOLY MOTHER THE CHURCH DOES NOT APPORVE THE NOVUS ORDO MASS BECAUSE VII MASS IS NOT A TRUE SACRIFICE AND IT DOES NOT PRESERVE THE HOLY EUCHARIST. It is an ontological impossibility that Holy Mother Church would cease to dispense the Sacraments; THEREFORE HOLY MOTHER THE CHURCH IS STILL DISPENSING THE SACRAMENTS BUT NOT IN THE VATICAN II NOVUS ORDO CHURCHES.”

Thank you Dan for speaking the truth with love, only now it is in complete statements.

Posted by Vermont Crank on Monday, Jun 13, 2011 1:45 PM (EDT):

Dear Servus. You deny that what over one billion Catholics think is the Catholic Church is not the Catholic Church - a visible Church, with Sacraments, authority, Doctrine, with a visible Hierarchy,etc - so what is that which you consider to be The Catholic Church?

Who is its head?

Where is it located?

Who are its Bishops?

Who constitutes its Clergy?

Who are its members?

What is it that qualifies one to be a member and who decides who it is that qualifies?

Who exercises authority?

It is clear that you reject what everyone else thinks is The Catholic Church but as to what sedevacantists think is the Catholic Church, that is as non-existent for we deluded Catholics as the Catholic Church is non existent for you.

So, tell us about the real Catholic Church - who established it, where it exists, its Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, Clergy, Mass, Sacraments etc.

Thank you

Posted by Father Anthony Cekada on Monday, Jun 13, 2011 2:04 PM (EDT):

Dear Vermont Crank:
Sorry I incorrectly labelled you as a Feeney supporter.
I will comment on only one of your points:
++++++++++
““Please, Father. None of this makes any sense and to try and suggest one must have some specialised knowledge to be aware that Holy Mother Church has suddenly, beginning in 1958, cease to exist as a visible perfect society is wildly irrational gnosis.”
++++++++++
In the post-Vatican II era of the ‘60s-‘70, many Catholics throughout the world who lacked any specialized theological knowledge instinctively reacted against, denounced or outright rejected the officially-sanctioned changes in doctrine, worship and discipline.
Some abandoned Catholicism altogether, others became part of the resistance, and some even denounced Paul VI as a non-Catholic (“Lutheran,” “modernist,” “marrano,” “anti-Christ,” and even, after a popular movie of the era “Paul VI is Rosemary’s Baby.”)
In perceiving that error and evil are present in the new teachings, discipline and worship (as many Catholics do), such Catholics also make an IMPLICIT JUDGEMENT ON THE AUTHORITY of those who promulgate these errors and evils.
This is so because, while the faith tells us that the authority of the Church herself CANNOT defect and give error and evil, Catholic theology, canon law and two popes tell us that those in authority in the Church CAN personally defect from the faith. When they do so publicly, they lose their authority.
By relying on these teachings, far from offering a “gnosis,” sedevacantism offers an explanation for the mess in the post-Vatican II church that preserves the notion that the Church is indeed infallible and indefectible.
On this note, I must now return to some pastoral work. I thank you for listening.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/how-useful-is-this-argument-against-sedevacantism/#ixzz1PAsM2Hfa

Posted by Vermont Crank on Monday, Jun 13, 2011 6:40 PM (EDT):

Dear Father Cekada. When the far worse situation of the public pederasty by priests that prevailed in the late 10th and early 11th centuries - so bad it required public admonishing by Saint Damien in his book Gomorrah - was that attributable to The Fourth Council of Constantinople?

And how long after Trent did it take before The Catholic Church began to build Seminaries?

Every Ecumenical Council has trailed in its wake heretics and schismatics and this most recent Ecumenical Council was no different.

For example, following Vatican I, we witnessed the opposition to it on the part of the putative traditionalists of The Old Catholic Church which has since descended into perverse doctrinal nuttiness and that is so because of the axiom that schism is proximate to heresy.

Apart from the Church one can do nothing and yet you believe that the visible Church has ceased to exist and so I assume you must think it now exists as an invisible society comprised of like-minded-believers but such a subjective state has never occurred in our more than 2000 year history and, far worse, the membership in that invisible society would be premised on rejecting the visible Catholic Church and that is just another way of saying that one has adopted the sine qua non of protestantism - private judgment and public opposition to the Catholic Church established by Jesus; Our Creator, Redeemer, Saviour, Lord, and King of Kings.

There simply has to be some official decision taken by the Catholic Church that a man is a formal heretic for such judgements were never intended for individual men to make. Who am I, a poor sinner compromised, and tinged, if not suffused, by the multitudinous errors of our time, to take the decision that a Pope is a heretic (even though Jesus prays for him personally so that Satan may not sift him) , that an Ecumenical Council taught error; that the Catholic Church approved a Mass that is invalid; that Holy Orders have ceased to exist except for a few clerics in this or that particular line descendent from some virtually unknown Bishops?

And there is the simple reality that the number of men who subjectively think that Pope Benedict XVI is orthodox out-numbers your side by, what, fifty million to one; more? When you think that 99% of the Church is out of step, it is more likely that it is you who is out of step.

Was I personally promised The Holy Ghost so I could infallibly identify heretical Popes and heretical Ecumenical Councils? To ask the question is to answer it. The Holy Ghost, The Paraclete, was promised to the Catholic Church to teach it all truth and to prevent it from teaching error and the most modern of novelties - beginning in the 1970s - is the ideology of sedevacantism which is no answer at all and which has no orthopraxic pedigree but could be found by sifting the theological speculations of this, that, and the other theologian but with no evidence to be found in The Magisterium that those theological speculations had been approved/accepted by The Church.

Has the Catholic Church had Popes who privately were heretics? From what I understand, we have and the number of them is in excess of 20. But not a single one of them officially taught error because The Holy Ghost, the Second Person of the Trinity, would not let them teach error.

Dear Father, you seem like an intelligent and kind man and so I have no explanation of how it was you came to decide that Our Triune God let Satan sink The Ark of Salvation and so this exchange on my part was conducted for the benefit of any lurkers and I tried to keep in largely in the realm of common sense.

Only prayer can change your heart and The Holy Ghost is waiting for your to open your heart to Him. Please, Father, do it while you still have time.

The promises made to the Catholic Church by Jesus are trustworthy and where Peter is there is the Church.

Posted by Lee Cunningham on Monday, Jun 13, 2011 8:06 PM (EDT):

Vermont, I’d like to get your thoughts on Joe Hargrave’s recent youtube video in response to this article:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3HHj8XlIAw&feature=share

Posted by Father Federico Palma on Tuesday, Jun 14, 2011 12:30 AM (EDT):

I am sedevacantist priest as well. I just wanted to tell Vermont Crank a couple of things.
1) He doesn’t understand the sedevacantist position, he confuses it very much with the SSPX position. We do not say that the Church is run by a heretic, that is the SSPX position.
2) To prove the sedevacantists wrong he has first to exonerate V II and its reforms from heresy or even error. He has to prove that, for instance, the novus ordo mass either in its latin or clown mass version is pleasing and respectful to God and leads people to holiness. I mention the clown mass here to make my point very clear, the clown mass is something acceptable in the V II church, it is not by any means an abuse (I invite readers to google it to see what I am talking about). If Vermont Crank argues that the clown mass is something serious and respectful to God, then I will have nothing else to say, because you cannot argue about something obvious,i.e. the clown mass is an insult to God. Also he so far did not prove Fr. Cekada wrong on the Frankenchurh. V C just quoted the part of Dominus Jesu which favors him, setting aside the other issues in it discussed at length by Bp Sanborn’s article quoted by Fr. Cekada.
3) V C argument against sedevacantists on the Visibility of the Church doesn’t hold. First as I said he must prove V II and its reforms are catholic. Otherwise the argument on the Visibility (to which I would add Infalibility and Indefectibility) is turned against him. In other words, he is telling the sedevacantists to extinguish a candle they have at home, while he has a huge wild fire in its own, first he has to take care of its own to come then to sedevacantists with those objections.
4) And yet I’ll say that it doesn’t go against the Visibility of the Church that it be reduced in number. Saint Paul himself speaks of the Great Apostasy of the nations. I won’t argue whether we are or not in it, but I’ll say that for Saint Paul at least IT IS POSSIBLE that the Church be greatly reduced in number but for V C it seems to be impossible. furthermore, Paul IV in its Bull already quoted says something similar at least regarding the acceptance of a false pope.
5) If V C wants to continues this discussion on a serious level, myself and I am sure Fr. Cekada will be very happy to do so. I just wanted to show that we sedevacantists are very aware of the objections against us, and we can answer them reasonably while at the same time it seems to me people like V C are very afraid to face DIRECTLY the ones we have against them.

Posted by Father Federico Palma on Tuesday, Jun 14, 2011 2:22 AM (EDT):

Sorry for the few misspelled words. Also sometimes in my previous post instead of ITS, I meant HIS. Thanks.

Posted by Vermont Crank on Tuesday, Jun 14, 2011 10:37 AM (EDT):

Dear Father Palma. If you are going to accuse The SSPX of holding to the idea that Pope Benedict XVI is a heretic it is only fair that you publicly source your claim.

As to the idea that I have a duty to prove to a Catholic Priest that what Holy Mother Church teaches is true is more a confession of the interlocutor’s lost Faith than it is a legitimate demand.

Catholics have always believed that what Holy Mother Church teaches is true because it teaches with the authority of Christ and it is guided by The Holy Ghost, the Second Person of The Blessed Trinity, who teaches Holy Mother Church all truth and preserves her from error.

Jesus is the head of the Catholic Church and Peter’s successors are His Vicars on Earth and the idea Jesus and The Holy Ghost would let His Church fail into error is an idea one is used to hearing from The Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the like and so to read such a thing from a Catholic Priest is sad and depressing.

It was a happy instance of spiritual synchronicity that when I read Dom Gueranger’s “The Liturgical Year,” this morning, he happened to be writing about the great apostasy in ,“Tuesday in Whitsun Week,: and he notes this ;”...The revolt spoken of by St. Paul, will show itself; men will abandon her (Catholic Church), side with the prince of this world, who is to be let loose for a little while, and serve the beast, to whom it shall be given to make war with the saints, yea, and to overcome them. The bride herself (The Catholic Church) will not be degenerate during these her last days on earth, for thou O holy Spirit! wilt still be with her, supporting her.”

“...But as in the Incarnate Word, there was the invisible Soul and the visible Body, so also the Church was to have a soul and a body; a soul, whose hidden beauty no eye but God’s can fully see, at least during her earthly sojourn; and a body, which is to be visible to men; an ever-living proof of God’s power, and of His love for the human race….He who is with Peter is with Christ.”

Sedevacantists think none of this is true anymore. And it is not only a pity, it is a delusion that threatens their immortal soul for apart from the Church, you can not only do noting, if you abandon the Catholic Faith and Doctrine,you hath not even God.

2 John 9 : Whosoever recedeth and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God, he that continueth in the doctrine, he hath both the Father and the Son.”

Other than the attempt to intellectualise into existence the putative key of sedevacantism so that one can escape from the chains of death one has affixed to their own soul by their loss of Faith and to, thus, try and evade culpability, I am at a loss to account for this grand spiritual delusion.

I am happy to grant that the individual with a severe spiritual delusion is likely to experience some exoneration of culpability but does it totally exonerate? Don’t ask me. I am just an amateur with absolutely no authority and those who pitch their tents in the Camp of The Sedes are just like me - they have no authority.

They are arrogant, Of that there is no discussion possible because they arrogate (root of arrogant) authority to themselves to judge the entire Catholic Church - from Pope to Ecumenical Council, from Cardinal to Bishop, from Priest to Sacraments, as having lost the Faith, of being heretical, of teaching error, etc etc.

It goes without saying that those in the Camp of the Sedes think the Holy Ghost has abandoned the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, and everyone else in the Camp of The Saints and that He, The Holy Ghost, serves only them in opposition to the Catholic Church Jesus established.

It is The Holy Ghost who works in their Sedevacantist Masses to make them valid, but not in the normative Mass approved by Holy Mother Church; it is The Holy Ghost who actualises the Sacraments in the Camp of the Sedes but not in the Camp of The Saints; it is The Holy Ghost who…well,you get the picture.

Jesus, The Head of the Catholic Church, has let His Church fail - even though He promised He would not - and The Holy Ghost has abandoned His Catholic Church and He solely serves in the Camp of The Sedes.

It is, literally, a quite extraordinary spiritual delusion and it is reminiscent of a pathological mental health delusion;The Capgras Syndrome.

“The Capgras delusion theory (or Capgras syndrome) is a disorder in which a person holds a delusion that a friend, spouse, parent, or other close family member has been replaced by an identical-looking impostor.”

The Sedevacantism Delusion holds that what everyone else on the planet, except for them, sees as the visible Catholic Church has been replaced by heretical impostors in every single office.

The Pope is a heretic. Every single Cardinal is a heretic. Every single Bishop is a heretic. Every single Priest is a heretic. In the observable Catholic Church, there are no Catholics and the poor deluded laity are not going to Mass, they are not getting married, they are not having their sins forgiven in Confession they are not receiving Confirmation etc etc etc and the individuals who willing embraced this delusion are now demanding that Holy Mother Church prove it is not heretical.

Wow. What can possibly be a response to such a profound spiritual delusion? Naught but prayer.

It is,literally,impossible to reason with those who become delusional.

In the field of mental health, even fixed delusions are not correctable by the most powerful of psychotropic medications but it is different in the economy of Divine Love.

Prayer is infinitely more powerful than any psychotropic medication that has ever been or ever will be developed and it alone, not reason or argumentation, can correct this grand spiritual delusion that every man, from Pope to Cardinal to Bishop to Priest, has been replaced by a non-Catholic.

I do want to respond to the claim that Clown Masses are approved by Holy Mother Church. Of course that is an outrageous claim that can not be substantiated whereas the contrary truth - that such Mass abuses were not tolerated -can easily be seen by reading Pope Blessed John Paul II’s (sorry, I am drawing a blank at the moment..Donum..something? ) official publicly apologies for such abuses.

And let us not forget that at The Council of Trent, the Church Fathers were constrained to apologise/correct/warn about the many abuses then extant in the Immemorial Mass - from Simony, to Superstition, to noise at Mass, etc etc etc.

Posted by Vermont Crank on Tuesday, Jun 14, 2011 11:04 AM (EDT):

Dominicae Cenae

“...As I bring these considerations to an end, I would like to ask forgiveness—in my own name and in the name of all of you, venerable and dear brothers in the episcopate. for everything which, for whatever reason, through whatever human weakness, impatience or negligence, and also through the at times partial, one-sided and erroneous application of the directives of the Second Vatican Council, may have caused scandal and disturbance concerning the interpretation of the doctrine and the veneration due to this great sacrament. And I pray the Lord Jesus that in the future we may avoid in our manner of dealing with this sacred mystery anything which could weaken or disorient in any way the sense of reverence and love that exists in our faithful people…”

Inaestimabile Donum?Instruction

Concerning Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery?Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship
Approved and Confirmed by His Holiness Pope John Paul II April 17, 198

“...But these encouraging and positive aspects cannot suppress concern at the varied and frequent abuses being reported from different parts of the Catholic world: the confusion of roles, especially regarding the priestly ministry and the role of the laity (indiscriminate shared recitation of the Eucharistic Prayer, homilies given by lay people, lay people distributing Communion while the priests refrain from doing so); an increasing loss of the sense of the sacred (abandonment of liturgical vestments, the Eucharist celebrated outside church without real need, lack of reverence and respect for the Blessed Sacrament, etc.); misunderstanding of the ecclesial character of the Liturgy (the use of private texts, the proliferation of unapproved Eucharistic Prayers, the manipulation of the liturgical texts for social and political ends). In these cases we are face to face with a real falsification of the Catholic Liturgy: “One who offers worship to God on the Church’s behalf in a way contrary to that which is laid down by the Church with God-given authority and which is customary in the Church is guilty of falsification.”

Re Trent and Mass Abuses…

http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2010/04/liturgical-abuses-at-the-council-of-trent/#_ftn13

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct22.html

DECREE CONCERNING THE THINGS TO BE OBSERVED, AND TO BE AVOIDED, IN THE CELEBRATION OF MASS.

What great care is to be taken, that the sacred and holy sacrifice of the mass be celebrated with all religious service and [Page 160] veneration, each one may easily imagine, who considers, that, in holy writ, he is called accursed, who doth the work of God negligently; and if we must needs confess, that no other work can be performed by the faithful so holy and divine as this tremendous mystery itself, wherein that life-giving victim, by which we were reconciled to the Father, is daily immolated on the altar by priests, it is also sufficiently clear, that all industry and diligence is to be applied to this end, that it be performed with the greatest possible inward cleanness and purity of heart, and outward show of devotion and piety. Whereas, therefore, either through the wickedness of the times, or through the carelessness and Corruption of men, many things seem already to have crept in, which are alien from the dignity of so great a sacrifice; to the end that the honour and cult due thereunto may, for the glory of God and the edification of the faithful people, be restored; the holy Synod decrees, that the ordinary bishops of places shall take diligent care, and be bound to prohibit and abolish all those things which either covetousness, which is a serving of idols, or irreverence, which can hardly be separated from impiety; or superstition, which is a false imitation of true piety, may have introduced. And that many things may be comprised in a few words: first, as relates to covetousness:—they shall wholly prohibit all manner of conditions and bargains for recompenses, and whatsoever is given for the celebration of new masses; as also those importunate and illiberal demands, rather than requests, for alms, and other things of the like sort, which are but little removed from a simonical taint, or at all events, from filthy lucre.

In the next place, that irreverence may be avoided, each, in his own diocese, shall forbid that any wandering or unknown priest be allowed to celebrate mass. Furthermore, they shall not allow any one who is publicly and notoriously stained with crime, either to minister at the holy altar, or to assist at the sacred services; nor shall they suffer the holy sacrifice to be celebrated, either by any Seculars or Regulars whatsoever, in [Page 161] private houses; or, at all, out of the church, and those oratories which are dedicated solely to divine worship, and which are to be designated and visited by the said Ordinaries; and not then, unless those who are present shall have first shown, by their decently composed outward appearance, that they are there not in body only, but also in mind and devout affection of heart. They shall also banish from churches all those kinds of music, in which, whether by the organ, or in the singing, there is mixed up any thing lascivious or impure; as also all secular actions; vain and therefore profane conversations, all walking about, noise, and clamour, that so the house of God may be seen to be, and may be called, truly a house of prayer.
Lastly, that no room may be left for superstition; they shall by ordinance, and under given penalties, provide, that priests do not celebrate at other than due hours; nor employ other rites, or other ceremonies and prayers, in the celebration of masses, besides those which have been approved of by the Church, and have been received by a frequent and praiseworthy usage. They shall wholly banish from the Church the observance of a fixed number of certain masses and of candles, as being the invention of superstitious worship, rather than of true religion; and they shall instruct the people, what is, and whence especially is derived, the fruit so precious and heavenly of this most holy sacrifice. They shall also admonish their people to repair frequently to their own parish churches, at least on the Lord’s days and the greater festivals. All, therefore, that has been briefly enumerated, is in such wise propounded to all Ordinaries of places, as that, by the power given them by this sacred and holy Synod, and even as delegates of the Apostolic See, they may prohibit, ordain, reform, and establish, not only the things aforesaid, but also whatsoever else shall seem to them to have relation hereunto; and may compel the faithful people inviolably to observe them, by ecclesiastical censures and other penalties, which at their pleasure they may appoint; any privileges, exemptions, appeals, and customs whatsoever, to the contrary notwithstanding.

++++++++ end of quotes++++++++++

Abuses creep into Holy Mother Church and Holy Mother Church, alone, has the authority to correct them.

It would be a kindness if those in The Camp of The Sedes would identify for those of us in The Camp of The Saints where their authority derived from and from whom it derived because I have never read or heard, in Bible, Church, or Tradition the idea that a Bishop separated from Peter, or a Priest, or a lay man had authority to make these judgments.

And, let us be frank. Authority in the Catholic Church is Divinely Constituted and not one, not one individual, in the Camp of the Sedes has any authority despite their attempt to arrogate unto themselves such authority and such an attempt to arrogate authority to one’s own self is the sine qua non of protestantism

Posted by Vermont Crank on Tuesday, Jun 14, 2011 2:58 PM (EDT):

Dear Mr. Cunningham. I listened to Mr. Hargrave’s response to this piece by Mr. Akin and I have already answered his claims.

I do think it is worth taking the time to note that Holy Mother Church has responded to Mormons, JW’s , and many many others and so his citing of the observation by Ghandi is rendered nugatory vis a vis the sedevacantist delusion.

It is to be deplored that the delusion of sedevacantism is considered the “answer” to these captious times but when in the history of the Catholic Church have we not had captious times?

It seems to me that from almost the moment the Church was born from the side of Jesus at the Cross on Calvary we have had divisions and heresies and schisms but it has never been a Catholic response to the storms at sea, that tosses about The Barque of Peter, to claim that the Catholic Church established by Jesus has failed; and not only just failed, but has become an evil enterprise teaching heresy and that one’s salvation is achieved by willingly walking the plank off The Barque of Peter.

Here is Our Sweet Jesus on Earth referencing the captiousness following The Council of Nicea:

+++++++++++ begin quotes++++++++++++

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI?TO THE ROMAN CURIA ?OFFERING THEM HIS CHRISTMAS GREETINGS
Thursday, 22 December 2005
...
No one can deny that in vast areas of the Church the implementation of the Council has been somewhat difficult, even without wishing to apply to what occurred in these years the description that St Basil, the great Doctor of the Church, made of the Church’s situation after the Council of Nicea: he compares her situation to a naval battle in the darkness of the storm, saying among other things: “The raucous shouting of those who through disagreement rise up against one another, the incomprehensible chatter, the confused din of uninterrupted clamouring, has now filled almost the whole of the Church, falsifying through excess or failure the right doctrine of the faith…” (De Spiritu Sancto, XXX, 77; PG 32, 213 A; SCh 17 ff., p. 524).
+++++++++ end quotes ++++++++++++

There is nothing new under the sun including weird things happening after Ecumenical Councils and spiritual delusions about Holy Mother Church.

Jesus sent His Apostles out into the world to preach the good news and convert the nations whereas the sedevacantist delusion is a mad movement of those who have anointed themselves to announce to the world the bad news of the extinction of the Church established by Jesus.

Here is Our Blessed Lord and Saviour:

18. And I say also to you, That you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church: and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

From “Catena Aurea” , we extract the faithful exegesis of the great St Cyril:

CYRIL; According to this promise of the Lord, the Apostolic Church of Peter remains pure and spotless from all leading into error, or heretical fraud, above all Heads and Bishops, and Primates of Churches and people, with its own Pontiffs, with most abundant faith, and the authority of Peter. And while other Churches have to blush for the error of some of their members, this reigns alone immovably established, enforcing silence, and stopping the mouths of all heretics; and we, not drunken with the wine of pride, confess together with it the type of truth, and of the holy apostolic tradition.

+++++++ end quotes ++++++++++

The sedevacantist delusion cultivates in the intellects of its adherents an evil eisegesis that turns the words of Jesus on their head and makes of Him a liar while making a scandal and a mockery of Church and Tradition.

Posted by Father Anthony Cekada on Tuesday, Jun 14, 2011 4:01 PM (EDT):

Vermont Crank’s lengthy quotes do nothing more than present a circular argument which boils down to nothing more that this:
“Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI could not/cannot be heretics because they are true Successors of St. Peter who cannot be heretics.”
You will see why sedevacantists would not find such a case very convincing — because the issue of whether or not Paul VI, etc. ARE true Successors of St. Peter is precisely the issue we are arguing about.
Finally, I note that VC refers to sedevacantism at least a half dozen times as a “delusion.”
If I were looking for a really good delusion, though, it would be to convince myself, against all rational evidence, that Vatican II was a “new springtime” for the Church — rather than an atom bomb that brought only nuclear winter.

Posted by Father Federico Palma on Tuesday, Jun 14, 2011 5:46 PM (EDT):

For Vermont Crank.
1) I Still say that V C doesn´t understand the sedevacantist position. We do not say that the church is run by a heretic. I´ll ask V C at least to be accurate when he portrays our position. As far as SSPX position, see this link http://www.sspx.org/news/assisi_iii/assisi_iii.htm
and then we may argue about it.
2)His arguments are circular arguments, something like: Vatican II, its reforms and its “popes” are good because they come or are from the Church. Actually the whole issue is precisely that one, namely: Do Vatican II, its reforms and its “popes” come from the Church? V C reminds me to those protestants who try to prove the Bible is the word of God using the very Bible. Is it that difficult to understand this? V C must defend V II and its reforms and its “popes” answering directly one by one our objections, he must prove that they ( Vatican II, reforms) agree with the previous magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. In other words, he has to prove with previous church teaching that frankenchurch, clown masses, Holy Ghost using other churches as means of salvation too, muslims together with catholics adoring the one, merciful God, mankind´s judge on the last day, Ecumenical meetings like Assisi 1986 (and like this one another 100) in which JP II invited and fostered false religions to pray to their false gods, and many many other things, V C has to prove, as I was saying, that they are ok, backed up by previous catholic teaching, which should be, in theory, undisputable for both sides.
3) Sedevacantists don´t claim authority to point out obvious heresies. Or do you need authority to tell you that, for instance, a clown mass is an insult to God? What is obvious is obvious.

Posted by Vermont Crank on Tuesday, Jun 14, 2011 6:32 PM (EDT):

Dear Father Cekada. You have lost the Faith and the grand delusion of sedevacantism is no answer for one who has made a shipwreck of their Faith.

What I posted was a Common Sense position based upon the promises of Jesus that the Catholic Church would not fail, could not teach error, would remain a visible church with a Pope etc etc. That is, I posted a Common Sense and sane presentation of The Catholic Faith as it came to us from Jesus and His Apostles guided by The Holy Ghost and promised never to fail.

Sedevacantists hold the grand delusion that it has changed in its entirety and teaches error and that is a delusion that can not be “argued” (delusions by their nature are irrefutable to the one/s who hold them).

Now, it is true that sedevacantists are delusional when it comes to the matter of Popes being heretics and teaching heresy- they believe beyond a shadow of doubt that that is so - but it is quite literally a shared delusion - a folie a deux multiplied manifold times - amongst a mad miniscule minority of excommunicated men and it is, because it is a delusion, not correctable by reason.

That being the plain and simple truth, there is no “argument” as to whether or not five consecutive Popes since 1958 have been heretics for several reasons. Here are just two;

Sedes have no authority to make that judgment and The Catholic Church can not fail and teach heresy because that is her Divinely Constituted nature.

Now, It is true that sedevacantists think that The Holy Ghost has withdrawn His grace from The Catholic Church established by Jesus and transferred it to the Camp of the Sedes but that is not a rational
argument,” that is a manifest delusion.

That grand delusion is not held by a single Catholic in the Hierarchy; not The Popes validly elected since 1958, not one Cardinal named since 1958, not one Bishop ordained since 1958, not one Priest ordained since 1958 and for that I give thanks and praise to our almighty and true Triune God who does not make promises He does not keep.

Sedevacantis are doomed to keep demanding “proof” that could refute their delusion but that is to demand an impossibility. Theirs is an delusion, as are all delusions, impenetrable by reason.

Isaias was prescient about such spiritual delusions that demand rationality to defeat a delusion:

“Unless ye believe, ye shall not understand.”

Having lost the Faith, having ceased to believe in the promises of Jesus,they have ceased to understand; there is no “argument” to be made that can convince even one sedevacantist that they are wrong; there is but prayer begging The Holy Ghost to open their eyes and to regain their lost Faith.

For lurkers, I post a link refuting the sede “arguments” but it goes without saying that such evidence will be reflexively gainsaid by those holding the sedevacantism delusion.

BTW, accrd to the 1917 Code of Canon that they routinely reference, they are excommunicated so we have the sad spectacle of yet another cohort of Church castaways condemning the Catholic Church Jesus established; and how many times in our long history have we witnessed that phenomenon?

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Feature_-_The_Errors_of_Sedevacantism.pdf

Posted by Vermont Crank on Tuesday, Jun 14, 2011 6:37 PM (EDT):

“We do not say that the Church is run by a heretic, that is the SSPX position.”

Dear Fr Palma. Your link does not substantiate your claim about the SSPX.

Posted by Larry Bartlett on Tuesday, Jun 14, 2011 6:45 PM (EDT):

I still agree with Vermont Crank: Whats wrong with using the bible to prove it’s the word of god? It may not be the only thing but it certainly is the main thing. It seems that the clown mass has been taken out of context, who knows what frankenchurches are, I cannot find anything. And as for the holy spirit working in people other than catholics lives, your religious bigotry is certainely not the answer. Truly you sedes need to build your argument on more than your bigotry and disagreement with the church. The pope hanging out with other religious leaders is nothing more than showing respect and love. It’s a begining. Even christ forgave sinners. I’ve lisitned to sedes for years but they have never once in my opinion shown their greater authority in such matters than the vatican.

Posted by Father Federico Palma on Tuesday, Jun 14, 2011 7:27 PM (EDT):

For Vermont Crank
You are not answering my objections yet. You are writing a lot, saying very little, you still use circular arguments. For the sake of argument, let us grant sedevacantists are wrong, that still will not make V II Church to be right. Answer the objections, come up with previous Church teaching holding the same things V II and its reforms hold. My claim about SSPX can be discussed later on, we were talking about them only incidentally. In any case we don´t say that the Church is run by a heretic as you said we do.

For Larry Bartlett. With all my respect.
Do you know that in Assisi false religions were invited, fostered and encouraged by JP II to pray to their false gods? (If you don´t know what happened there, then do some research) There is an abyss of difference between that and merely showing respect for people. Sure, in Assisi and in all the meetings they hold together they were/are treated by JP II and B XVI as “sinners”. Also notice that the words used by V II regarding the Holy Ghost are not the same ones you are using, V II says that the Holy Ghost uses CHURCHES as means of salvation, you are talking about PEOPLE. Well, the only CHURCH the Holy Ghost uses as means of salvation is the Roman Catholic Church. Or do I have to prove that too? Can you show me how did I take out of context the clown masses? Was any bishop rebuked by having them in their diocesis?

If I don´t answer you back will only be because of my pastoral duties.
Precisely, respect and love for the Truth and for souls are the only reasons which moved me to write these lines.

Posted by Servus on Tuesday, Jun 14, 2011 8:27 PM (EDT):

To Vermont Crank:
http://holyromancatholicchurch.org/sede.htm

Posted by Larry Bartlett on Tuesday, Jun 14, 2011 11:36 PM (EDT):

@Servus
I went to the site you posted..http://holyromancatholicchurch.org/sede.htm
What are the specifics?

Posted by Larry Bartlett on Wednesday, Jun 15, 2011 1:05 AM (EDT):

F. Palma. I went to the vatican web site and read : ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II TO THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES…..Assissi 1986..The Pope made it clear that he invited religious leaders, NOT religions. There is a difference. These were humans he was talking to. He asked these “people” to fast and pray for peace, Not religions as you infer. He in fact made that really clear. I think that even you encourage people to pray that are living in error. You say that the Holy Spirit only uses the catholic church for the salvation of souls. Does that means a babtist or prosdestant saint cannot go to heaven? does not god call all men, no matter where they are? Does not god answere all mens prayers? Does not the catholic church influence even the other churches? In that influence don’t they help to keep the other religions on the right path fulfilling their commission? Does not even the disagreement of religious discussion increase ones prayer, desire to know the truth? I walk outside and I look at the flowers, I see the neighborhood dogs and the little children playing and laughing and I ask myself how can I sin while being surrounded in such beauty and magnifiance. How can I forget to just Love God, and love my neighbor? No matter who they are.

Posted by Father Federico Palma on Wednesday, Jun 15, 2011 1:57 AM (EDT):

Dear Larry Bartlett, I guess that was the only thing JP II could do, to invite religious LEADERS, leaders of what though, of religions… Also I remind you that to that meeting Jews, Muslims, Hinduists, Buddhists, Indians and many other religious leaders were also invited to pray to their false gods.
I never heard in my whole life of a baptist or protestant saint. The only discussions I know of between the Church and false religions are those in which the Church proved the latter wrong, something the Church always did with true charity trying to convert them.
Could you provide me with a single church document before V II which says that the Holy Ghost uses other CHURCHES as means of salvation? And again you are not quite saying the same as V II says, you are talking of the influence of the catholic church upon other religions, V II is saying other churches are used as means of salvation, two different things. Finally I have to tell you that other religions have to fulfil no commission whatsoever, the mission to bring souls to heaven was completely intrusted to the Roman Church. Even somebody ignorant of it in good faith will be saved if so through her and not through any false religion.

Posted by Larry Bartlett on Wednesday, Jun 15, 2011 2:16 AM (EDT):

I probably worded that wrong when calling a Baptist a saint, I merely was meaning someone good enough to go to heaven. But you seem unwilling to answere that question. I understand where your coming from, when the Pope calls for prayer and peace you only see the bad.

Posted by Father Federico Palma on Wednesday, Jun 15, 2011 3:01 AM (EDT):

I already answered you about somebody being ignorant in good faith and that could be certainly the case of baptist in good faith.
The pope calling for prayers and peace? you are telling half of the story, half of the truth. The true story is J PII and B XVI asking leaders of false religions to pray to their false gods and sometimes even joining them in their prayers to their false gods as B XVI did two years ago in the blue mosque in Turkey praying with Muslims toward Mecca. Do you talk about peace? There is one possible peace here on earth, that those false religions convert to the true faith. The Peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ, of that Christ whom muslims, by the way, reject as True God.

Posted by Larry Bartlett on Wednesday, Jun 15, 2011 4:26 AM (EDT):

Ok, so a person of a false religion can go to heaven. I agree that people of other faiths are ignorant of the catholic faith. The only way that person say a baptist is going to heaven is with the holy spirit working in him. The holy spirt is everywhere. My previous comment concerning fulfilling it’s comission, was directed about the catholic church. It influences other churches tremendously. Granted not all or even half. But when the pope speaks the world listenes. Earlier you lumped the Jews, Muslims, Hinduists, Buddhists all together. We have peace with the jews, the hindus and buddhists right? We never will with the muslims they seem intent on ruling the world. Pope John in 1986 made it clear this was not about religion, it was about humans trying to get along, thats all. It is impossible to have a conversation while telling someone that their wrong and going to hell for their beliefs. God does not force us nor can we force anyone else. The church has made great advances in civilizing the world yet not all are catholic. Benedict prayed toward mecca, he did not say muslim prayers and he did not apoloize for a previous speech they were upset about. It’s late I’m rambling good night.

Posted by Vermont Crank on Wednesday, Jun 15, 2011 10:30 AM (EDT):

“You are not answering my objections yet…”

Dear Father Palma. I can not rationally answer your objections because they are inextricably enmeshed in the delusion of sedevacantism and a delusion is not correctable by argument.

I thought of you, and Father Cekada, and others in the Sede Camp, this morning when I read Dom Gueranger’s entry for the day, “Wednesday in Whitsun Week,” in his great, “The Liturgical Year,” and he had this to say;

“We have seen with what fidelity the Holy Ghost has fulfilled, during all these past ages, the mission He received from our Emmanuel, of forming, protecting, and maintaining His bride the Church.”

And the delusion of Sedevacantism, the spiritual equivalent of the Capgras Delusion, holds the Holy Ghost has become unfaithful, abandoned His Church, and that He allows it to be led by Heretics and suffers it to teach error.

Dear Father. That is flat out madness. It is a delusion and it envinces you have lost the Faith.

I know those in the Sede Camp, a Camp without a General, follows-up their, literally, unbelievable charges with demands their objections be answered and then when they are - the internet teems with those documented and sourced responses - they are “analysed” by those holding the delusion and those responses are always judges as failures.

And, of course, that is to be expected. When those holding a delusion arrogate to themselves the authority to judge The Pope and Holy Mother Church, who in their right mind would think that those holding that delusion would judge themselves as the ones in error? No. They always and everywhere judge that Holy Mother Church is in error.

Those holding the sedevacantist delusion are forever doomed to act this way because that is the nature of a delusion. No matter what evidence is brought to bear to show how it is they are the ones who are apostates, heretics, and heterodox, because they are prosecutor, judge and jury, the evidence is either gainsaid or dragged into the abattoir of their delusion with easily predictable results.

The only response to the sedevacantism delusion is prayer that The Holy Ghost will restore the Faith of those who hold that delusion.

“The Liturgical Year,” by the great Gueranger, notes today: ““The Holy Ghost, who is the soul of the Church, acts upon all the members; and as He Himself is One, He produces unity in the body He animates. He cannot contradict Himself; nothing, therefore subsists by Him, which is not in union with Him.”

The Sedevacantist delusion holds the precise negative “doctrine.” And, oh my, did the great Gueranger use the word “subsists?”

Why yes he did and there are other examples of its use throughout “The Liturgical Year,” But, those holding the sedevacantist tell me its use is a sign of heterodoxy and heresy etc etc .

Oh well, I always thought that guy was a crypto-modernist who hated the truth :)

Posted by Vermont Crank on Wednesday, Jun 15, 2011 10:48 AM (EDT):

Dear Servus The link to which you sent me presents the sedevcantist delusion in all of its garish absurdity.

It perfectly illustrates how the sedevacantist delusion, while it is a modern manifestation of opposition to the Church established by Jesus, embraces and incorporates the errors of former opponents of the Catholic Church such as tghe 14th century heretic, John Wycliff whose errors about the Pope and The Catholic Church were condemned at The Council of Constance.

Wycliff held, “The Roman Church is the synagogue of Satan, and the Pope is not the proximate and immediate vicar of Christ and of the apostles.”

And that is what is believed by those who hold the sedevacantist delusion.

The sedevacantist delusion is a modern novelty with not a single orthopraxic pedigree within the Catholic Church but that does not mean that delusion does not embrace errors long-ago condemned.

Posted by Vermont Crank on Wednesday, Jun 15, 2011 11:36 AM (EDT):

So, I was doing some checking around this morning and I discovered that the sedevacantist delusion began too late. It started in the 1970s and holds that every Pope since 1958 is a non-Pope but that is totally too little and too late.

Until I discover information that ineluctably reveals an earlier fake Pope, I think we must consider that the reign of fake Popes began with fake Pope Benedict XV. And, because he was a non-Pope, it follows, axiomatically, that Pope Pius Xi and Pope Pius XII were also fake Popes and so there go all the claims produced by the sedevacantism delusion.

http://www.thecatholicfaith.info/The_Case_Against_Benedict_XV.htm

This is all fascinating. Who knows how far back in time the line of fake Popes begins? I would think that diligent work would unveil even earlier fakes. Is it too much to hope the line of fake Popes began prior to, say, the year 1000 A.D. ?

Who knows?

I mean, really, how much do we know about, say, Pope Saint Hyginus, 135-140 A.D.?

He didn’t even offer Mass in Latin for crying our loud….

Posted by Vermont Crank on Wednesday, Jun 15, 2011 12:13 PM (EDT):

Dang!!! This fake Pope is one of my heroes, but, it is clear that he too was a fake Pope and he preceded fake Pope Benedict XV and so fake Pope, Pope Saint Pius X, is the earliest fake Pope identified; so far.

Well, what ya gonna do? According to the Sedevacantist delusion anyone can identify a manifest heretic and once he is so identified, he becomes a fake Pope , a heretic , and he loses his office.

Still, I love him, even though he was a heretic and a fake Pope and I will still keep the photo my wife took of me inside The Basilica of St Peter standing before the statuary of Pope Saint Pius X.

http://www.thecatholicfaith.info/The_Case_Against_Pius_X.htm

Posted by Vermont Crank on Wednesday, Jun 15, 2011 12:22 PM (EDT):

Excellent. We are now back into the 18th Century in the line of fake Popes. Fake Pope Innocent III (talk about hateful irony; “Innocent” as the name taken by an obvious manifest heretic?) was riddled with heresy

http://www.thecatholicfaith.info/The_Case_Against_Leo_XIII.htm

Well, that is it for me today. Learning that Pope Clement XII, elected in 1700 A.D., was our last real Pope is a shock. I need to take some rest

Posted by Vermont Crank on Wednesday, Jun 15, 2011 12:29 PM (EDT):

Oops!! I forgot to add this:

“So it is a fact that “Cardinal” Pecci became a public heretic on February 12, 1860, if he wasn’t already a public heretic on another account. Therefore, per Pope Paul IV in Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, written February 15, 1559, so-called “Cardinal” Pecci could never have ascended to the papacy.”

Pope Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb 15, 1559: “Hence by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, ... We enact, determine, decree, and define ... that: each and every member of the following categories - Bishops, Archbishops, ... Cardinals ... who: ... in the future also shall deviate, or fall into heresy, or incur schism, or provoke or commit either or both of these, ... shall also automatically, without any exercise of law or application of fact, be thoroughly, entirely and perpetually deprived of: their orders and cathedrals, ... the honour of the cardinalate, ... all authority, ... and ecclesiastical offices ... In addition, ... if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, ... or any Cardinal ... prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: the promotion or elevation ...shall be null, void, and worthless; it shall never be possible for it acquire validity ... No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation ... If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.”

++++++++ end of quote +++++++++++++

Read it and weep all of you who have so rashly presumed that Pope Innocent III was a real Pope, for according to Pope Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb 15, 1559, fake Pope Innocent III was not a real Pope because of his manifest and obvious heresy.

Posted by Vermont Crank on Wednesday, Jun 15, 2011 1:02 PM (EDT):

Over at “Christ or Chaos” (A sedevacantist website) one can read about what really happens in The Camp of The Sedes where there is no authority. Fr Cekada comes under withering criticism and if Dr Droleskey is truthful about what he has to say about Fr Cekada and poor Terry Schiavo, he had done things far worse than anything he has accused the putative false Popes of doing.

+++++++++++ begin quotes++++++++++++++++

Father Anthony Cekada thrives on such quarrels….Father Cekada sided with all manner of pro-abortion physicians on the state of Terri Schiavo’s medical condition and even with the conciliar “bishop” of Saint Petersburg, Florida, the odious Robert Lynch, on the moral principles as he dismissed with arrogance and contempt the expertise of Catholic pro-life medical experts, including the son, Dr. James Gebel, Jr., of a longtime parishioner of Saint Gertrude the Great Church, and of other Catholics on the moral issues…No, Father Cekada is a personal “Holy Office,” issuing findings on such things how there is no “written record” of the vision that Pope Leo XIII had while offering Holy Mass that prompted him to compose the longer version of the Saint Michael the Archangel Prayer or on how Russia has been “converted,” thereby obviating the need to pray the Prayers after Low Mass as the three Hail Marys, which are prayed for the Church in Russia, are no longer necessary because the pretended “collapse” of Communism there on December 25, 1991, had provided more freedom for the Church. Freedom for the Church. Russia “converted”? To what? Another dictatorship, that’s what. Consider the commentary of naturalist who has a better grasp of the reality of the situation in Russia than the one Father Cekada had when he wrote his treatise justifying the omission of the Prayers after Low Mass:....What need was there for Father Cekada to put the Prayers after Low Mass into question in a public forum, no less to remove them from offerings of Low Masses….Just another instance of a needless argument started by Father Cekada. ….Father Cekada just can’t help himself.
Bishop Dolan and Father Cekada have been consumed these past nineteen months to the point of obsession in attempting to exact revenge on Father Ramolla for establishing what they consider to be a “rival” parish. Bishop Dolan, using the pulpit, and Father Cekada, using his Quidlibet blog, have publicly accused those who left Saint Gertrude the Great Church in November of 2009 variously as being “mentally ill” or filled with “hate.”...No, Bishop Dolan and Father Cekada, who have engaged for two decades now in intermittent warfare against their former “Public Enemy Number One,” Father William Jenkins of the Society of Saint Pius V, have to paint anyone and everyone who oppose them as being mentally ill or filled with hatred or having had “plans” to “destroy” them and their “work.”....Lost on Bishop Dolan and Father Cekada, steeped in their anger over the “rebellion” against their nonexistent “authority” …

++++++ end quotes +++++++++++++

http://christorchaos.com/RemovingAllDoubt.html

Apart from The Church one not only can do nothing, one will arrogate authority unto themselves and descend into madness, cruelty, and spiritual violence.

It gives me no pleasure or satisfaction to post this stuff but it will be useful information to lurkers tempted to think the sedevacantist delusion is the answer.

It is not the answer; it is malign madness.

Posted by Vermont Crank on Wednesday, Jun 15, 2011 1:32 PM (EDT):

http://thelaypulpit.blogspot.com/2011/03/plea-to-traditional-clerics-no-more.html

Earlier in this thread I wrote that Father Cekada seemed like a nice man and I judged that by what he wrote in here. I was not familiar with what he has done.

However, just a cursory search of what he has done reveals a Priest one would be well-advise to stay away from.

OK, I am going to go shower.

Posted by Father Anthony Cekada on Wednesday, Jun 15, 2011 1:50 PM (EDT):

It should be apparent from the last few postings that any further interventions here from me or other sedevacantists would probably be a waste of time.
But it hasn’t been a total waste so far, because to the great truths “Never eat at a place called Mom’s” and “Never play poker with a man called Doc,” we can now add “Never expect reasonable discussion from a guy called Crank.”

Posted by Vermont Crank on Wednesday, Jun 15, 2011 3:37 PM (EDT):

Dear Father. By your fruits they shall know thee. Yes, I think that any further discussion about sedevacantism will be non-productive for those of you who hold that delusion. And I think we have to thank you for your role as a sapper of sedevacantism. There is no such thing as a “reasonable” discussion about a Delusion with one who holds that delusion. Once it is identified, reason ceases and prayer begins but it is clear you remain in the accuse and discuss mode. C’et la vie.

The more folks learn about it and the more they learn about you the more absurd Sedevacantism appears.

As to your fruits and your putative ability to judge The Pope, The Ecumenical Council, The Mass, The Sacraments, etc etc?;

Let’s see, you were ordained a Priest in the SSPX Schism and then you and others were expelled from that Schism and so you and others started the SSPV Schism.

From The SSPX Schism to The SSPV Schism - how long will it be before there is a SSP2.5 Schism?

Posted by Vermont Crank on Wednesday, Jun 15, 2011 3:40 PM (EDT):

Sorry. I forgot to add that Pope Benedict XVI ended the SSPX schism and lifted the excommunications

Posted by Larry Bartlett on Wednesday, Jun 15, 2011 3:46 PM (EDT):

@Father Cekada: One of my favorite sede’s web sites
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/
Here you can watch all their videos and order their many books on the subject. Hey, there’s even an interview with George Noary, from the famous show coast to coast with Art Bell. Here they talk about the
catholic church, ufo’s, remote viewing, talking to the dead, magnetic water filters, etc.. really useful stuff. Well, maybe not so useful, but clearly not as reasonable as the vermont crank.

Posted by Vermont Crank on Wednesday, Jun 15, 2011 4:03 PM (EDT):

From a Culture Wars article about The SSPX..

+++++++++++++ begin quotes +++++++++++

The sede vacantist question brings us back to the United States. Three previously Lefebvrite priests, Fathers Cekada, Dolan and Sanborn, have now split from the Pius V Society, which Fr. Kelly had formed when he broke with Lefebvre, to become involved in varying degrees with the cult at Mount St. Michael, whose pretense to Catholicism rests on its connection to the Bishop Thuc (of South Vietnam) lineage. As Lefebvrite seminarians proposed for the priesthood back in the 1970s, these three encountered opposition because of their openly expressed sede vacantism. A delegation of American priests warned Lefebvre.

But the Archbishop. knowing their standpoint ordained them anyway. Then, in 1983, Lefebvre used that excuse, sede vacantism, to kick Fr. Kelly and the others out of the Society. The accusation must have rung hollow, given Lefebvre’s own leanings. Especially since Richard Williamson, openly a sede vacantist as a seminarian at Econe, was later made bishop for North America.

The real reason for Kelly’s ouster was his greed and power-mongering, and Williamson’s enmity. Kelly and Cekada had put their own names on a lot of Pius X property deeds in the Cincinnati area. There are strong hints that Kelly wanted to take over the whole Society in the United States. Williamson, who eventually came out on top, had bad-mouthed Kelly as long ago as the early 70s, when the two of them walked the seminary grounds at Econe. Now Kelly has his own little sect in Oyster Bay, N.Y., along with a few Pius V Society chapels dotted around the country. Many of these are engaged in property litigation, since they were originally owned by the Society of St. Pius X.

+++++++++++ end quotes ++++++++++

Dear Father Cekada. I apologise. You no longer are part of the SSPV Schism which formed after y’all were kicked-out of The then SSPX Schism.

Whew…this is tougher to track than a rabbit in Feb in Vermont after a freezing rain and I think that rabbit I was tracking went down the same rabbit hole were dwells the sedevacantists.

It is becoming ever clearer why you want a “reasonable” discussion of your absurd charges against legitimate Divinely-Cnstituted authority. It draws fire away for what it is you have done and what it is you do.

May God have mercy on sour soul

Posted by Father Federico Palma on Wednesday, Jun 15, 2011 5:49 PM (EDT):

The first rule for an intellectual and serious debate it is to portray accurately the adversary´s position, V C is not doing that, he is not being fair with sedevacantists. Sedevacantists don´t say or believe that the church is run by a heretic or that the Holy Ghost abandoned the Church, no, quite the contrary, that´s why we are sedevacantists.V C in the lack of theological arguments misrepresented our position appealing to circular arguments, lengthy quotes, half truths, personal issues and even calumnies.On the other hand, I thank Jimmy Akin for having at least tried to explain sedevacantism accurately, I cannot say the same about V C. Readers can follow the thread of the discussion by their own and if they have questions, they can always ask sedevacantist priests for an explanation. Because obviously it is impossible that the whole issue can be discussed properly and at length from a blog. However, this discussion at least helped in this sense, to show that maybe the V II and its reforms (Holy Ghost using other churches as means of salvation, new mass with its communion in the hand, lack of reverence toward real presence, emptiness, noise, lack of sacredness or even with its clowns if you want, interreligious meetings like Assisi 1986, “popes” praising muslim religion, kissing their Koran or even praying with them toward Mecca, etc, etc, etc.) do not come from the Holy Ghost,from the Roman Church; that, as a matter of fact, maybe the V II and its reforms are like a boat in the middle of the ocean with a thousand holes in it, impossible to fix. On that note, I´ll also follow Fr. Cekada´s course. Thanks.

Posted by Vermont Crank on Wednesday, Jun 15, 2011 6:47 PM (EDT):

Dear Father Palma. I correctly identified sedevacanstim as the spiritual delusion it is. Its time has come and gone and as more and more light is shone upon it more and more of those who are even casually conversant with it flee from it as though it were not a mere delusion but a mephitic and malign contagion.

I am sure that you well know that there are few websites who will treat of it because it is a delusion and therefore not falsifiable by facts and dealing with delusions is tedious, tiresome, and ridiculous.

For instance, while “Catholic Answers” continues to respond to the Mormons and The Jehovah Witneses, y’all are kaput. Kudos to Catholic Answers

Here is a typical exchange one might have with a sede.

“Jesus promised He woud be with the Catholic Church until the end of time and that it would not teach error.”

Sede: Exactly. You are proving my point. The Catholic Church is not Catholic.

(Wash, Rinse, Repeat; endlessly)

It is only to be expected that those who hold that delusion will defend it despite the reality that nearly one billion Christian Catholics accept the Pope and The Council and The Mass and The Sacraments and The Priesthood as valid.

You made false charges against The SSPX and then when called on it you claimed that what you wrote was unimportant and now you are falsely accusing me of calumny.

Well,I count myself in good company - you accuse The Pope of being a heretic and therefore not a Pope, and you claim there are No Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, or Sacraments in what 99.99999% of the entire population of the entire globe recognises as the visible Catholic Church.

The last one-half of your paragraph is a confused conflation of Vatican Two as a Council and regnant abuses neither mandated or authorised by the Council.

I think it is good that thee and Fr. C. are frank about your beliefs as those who hold the sedevacantist delusions are its most useful sappers when they tell others what they really believe and when Faithful Catholics discover how it sedevacantist priests act.

Posted by Ron Conte on Thursday, Jun 16, 2011 10:48 AM (EDT):

Either the Pope can possibly fall into heresy, or he cannot. If he can, then it would be left to the judgment of each individual as to whether or not each Pope was a heretic. No one could be certain which teachings were of the papal Magisterium. No one could be certain which Councils were valid. No one could be certain that any particular Pope did not fall into heresy in his heart and mind. The result would be as if the Church were founded on sand, not on the Rock that is Peter and his successors.

But Christ taught that the Church is founded on Rock, not on sand. Therefore, the Pope can never fall into any kind of heresy.
http://ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/06/12/can-a-pope-commit-the-sin-of-heresy/

Posted by Larry Bartlett on Thursday, Jun 16, 2011 1:03 PM (EDT):

@-R. Conte: you make it sound so simple, here is a great follow up article from Mark Shea
http://catholicexchange.com/2011/06/15/143431/

Posted by Vermont Crank on Thursday, Jun 16, 2011 2:06 PM (EDT):

Dear Mr. Conte. You do know that those who hold the sedevacantist delusion will not be persuaded, right?

I thought it was excellent.

Posted by Vermont Crank on Thursday, Jun 16, 2011 2:40 PM (EDT):

Dear Mr. Bartlett. THis is for another place and another time but Mr. Shea is wrong that we Catholics and Jews share continuity. Rabbinical Judaism is a man-made religion completely severed from the Judaism of the Temple and Priests and Sacrifices, etc.

After Titus destroyed the city of deicide, those who rejected Christ (now the meaning of the word Jew) formed a new man-made religion and we have not one thing in common with .them

Posted by Larry Bartlett on Thursday, Jun 16, 2011 3:03 PM (EDT):

@ Vermont Crank: This is truly above my pay scale, I thought what he meant contunity to mean was when christ brought in the gentiles, and from there started his church. We share the same god of Abraham. I hope I said that right.

Posted by Vermont Crank on Friday, Jun 17, 2011 12:04 PM (EDT):

Dear Mr. Bartlett. Amen, The Abrahamic Covenant remains while the Mosaic Covenant was superseded by The New Covenant; and that is a truth that Mr. Shea does not fully grasp.

But, as I say, that is for another place, another time.

Pax tecum, brother

Posted by Anila Maria Korbi on Friday, Jun 17, 2011 7:22 PM (EDT):

WOW, JIMMY, WHAT AN UNBELIEVABLE CHECKMATE!!! I am referring to the part that goes FROM “According to many current sedevacantists, Pius XII was the last valid pope…” THROUGH “it would seem impossible for there to be another validly elected pope. Ever.” GOD BLEES YOU!!!

Posted by Gloria on Sunday, Jun 19, 2011 10:06 AM (EDT):

Frankly, I saw this coming based upon his first statement, some time ago.

I was disturbed by his opinion that he was suffering *more* from unjust accusations because he was a *public* person, i.e., a priest who was well-known, and that the damage to him was therefore greater (presumably, greater than it would be for an ordinary, unknown priest.

A priest’s world is his world. Those he knows and loves, those who love him, and his reputation in that world are significant. It doesn’t matter if that world is composed of 300 persons, or a million. If he is unjustly accused, he suffers, period. The loss of his reputation is a cross and causes suffering.

The idea that John Corapi thought he would suffer *more* or that his reputation would be worth *more* than that of a hidden, non-famous priest was a huge red flag to me.

Granted, in terms of scandal to the Church, false accusations against a famous priest could be a greater problem than false accusations against an unknown priest.

But in terms of the priest, personally, a non-famous priest has just as great a loss as does a famous one if he is unjustly accused. That John Corapi didn’t seem to understand that was, I thought, a sign that he had become far too focused on his own persona.

Posted by Gloria on Sunday, Jun 19, 2011 10:40 AM (EDT):

Here is the line from John Corapi that I was referring to, from his first statement: “The resultant damage to the accused is immediate, irreparable, and serious, especially for someone like myself, since I am so well known.”

Posted by Servus on Sunday, Jun 19, 2011 1:15 PM (EDT):

Dearest Father Cekada, Father Palma, and all other Sedevacantists.

“There is so much erroneous banter on here, that a person would not know where to begin to refute it. These people have no love of the Truth, they seem to just bloviate to support themselves and the rest of their group.
The problem with blogs is that nothing can get resolved, it is just bad “expert” opinions all day long.” - Renovo

Thank you for showing us your love of the Truth.

They went out from us, but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us; but that they may be manifest, that they are not all of us.

1 John 2:22-23

This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and precepts of men.

Mark 7:6-7

For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears. And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.

2 Timothy 4:3-4

By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.

Matthew 7:16-20

Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ.

Colossions 2:8

And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.

2 Thessalonians 2:10-11

Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come apostasy first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God.

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4

Posted by The Reader on Monday, Jun 20, 2011 9:12 AM (EDT):

In addition to the already referenced site http://thelaypulpit.blogspot.com, we suggest commenters log on to http://vovwatch.com and http://pistrinaliturgica.blogspot.com for more information about Anthony Cekada. Even among sedevacantists, he is a fringe figure who is viewed with suspicion. Vovwatch.com has a complete account of Cekada and the Terri Schiavo case.

Posted by manticore on Wednesday, Jun 22, 2011 8:06 PM (EDT):

“...that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy”

## That a particular individual is successor of Peter is not and cannot be a dogma. What it would be, is something called a “dogmatic fact” - which is something quite different from a dogma, though related to it.

The former half of the sentence, and it alone, is a dogma; so there are two issues here, not one, of different theological weight & status. Propositions of different theological status need to be dealt separately, otherwise confusion & bad theology result.

Posted by bridget on Saturday, Jul 2, 2011 8:50 PM (EDT):

Jimmy would you stop writting all this waffle and get down to basics, if you want to work for Jesus go and spread the good news , who cares about all that crap you write, nobody is better than another in Gods eyes, and remember Our Lady didnt appear to the high and mighty and the so called knowledgable, she appeared to the poor and simple people and many illeterate children. How is explaining SEDEVACANTISM going to help the poor the hungry the downtrodden and our poor priests being held captive in many countries and being denied to read or practice their Faith,Jesus didnt place himself above the rest of the apostles He walked among them teaching, All this pomp and ceremony and dripping of jewels, must really upset our Lord. Look to Mother Therese the love and compassion and help she brought to the poorest of the poor, she didnt need bodyguards and limoseens. When she visited Ireland the Gov. sent a state car to pick her up at the Airport she declined and instead travelled in an old bangor of a car, she didnt want any pomp or ceremony.She was focused at all times never allowed herself to be carried away. What a wonderful Lady.Her heart was with the poor. How well we would do to take a leaf out of her book.We spend so much time on silly unimportant things. Seriously do we need all the hierarchy in the Church, parish priests, monsingers, bishops, archbishops,etc etc . Ok have priests and the Pope and have lay people involved in the finances let the clergy preach simple do you not agree.

Posted by bridget on Saturday, Jul 2, 2011 9:45 PM (EDT):

i have a question, How is Mother Angelica, I hope she is keeping well Give her my regards , and tell her she is in my prayers.

Posted by Baron Kahle on Sunday, Jul 3, 2011 2:37 AM (EDT):

Thanks Jimmy. You got people to think, which is something that todays society needs to do more. Please don’t lump all the sedevacantists together, though. Most are orthodox in their beliefs and live accordingly. A few others would probably be recognized as having borderline personality disorders if not totally delusional. It is amazing how many nonCatholics have all the answers for the Church as displayed by the comment section. It is too bad that the Catholic world cannot be as perfect as theirs.
My answer to the dilemma is that the Good Lord will provide us with the answer in His time. It would help if we all prayed for His assistance on this matter.

Posted by R.C. on Thursday, Aug 11, 2011 2:55 AM (EDT):

The Catholic Church (Militant) is that community of believers (still on Earth) who are directly in communion with the Bishop of Rome, or who are in communion with a Bishop who is in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

For a person to know the Truth (and thereby be set free), he must be able to validate the truth by having his understanding of it confirmed as correct by a living voice of authority. His own judgment, however profound his scholarship, is insufficient, as 500 years of Protestant dividing and subdividing amply illustrates.

Without a real Bishop of Rome or at least a real capacity to determine the successor of the last real Bishop of Rome, this ability of the individual believer to validate his understanding of the truth vanishes. For that validation requires a visible living Magisterium of whom one can ask a question and receive an audible answer. Reading books is not enough, one must be able to say, “Have I correctly understood these books?” and hear the answer as either as either “Yes” or “No.” Without this living voice as an avenue for validation, it becomes no longer possible for a Christian to know the truth; he becomes subject to shifting winds of doctrine.

So it is a continuing need in the world that we have a valid Pope, somewhere, or at least, in an interregnum, valid Cardinals, who are identifiable through objective external evidence using standards accessible to the layperson.

And of course the objective external evidence the Church has always used is this: “Is this person the Successor of Peter, properly ordained, and placed in office according to the norms of the Church?”

I say again: We need this; it is a requirement like food and water and air.

Christ knows this, and has given us the Bishop of Rome as our focus for unity. Take away that focus, or make that focus impossible to identify among so many pretenders without recourse to some obscure gnosis, and plumbers and truck drivers will have no practical way to discern whom they should trust about some disputed matter of doctrine.

To say that Jesus has permitted that focus to die away irreplaceably is to say that Jesus has abandoned us, that He has left us to our own devices, bidding us all abandon whatever vocations we might normally have pursued in favor of seminary degrees and PhD’s in Biblical Theology, so that we might all have some hope of discerning truth from falsehood. What hope, then, for accuracy, let alone unity?

Either Benedict XVI is the valid and true Successor of Peter and Head of Christ’s Church, or the One Church is gone from the earth. Believing in Christ’s mercy, not to say divinity, I am predisposed to adopt the former option. End of story.

Posted by Larry on Thursday, Aug 11, 2011 5:21 AM (EDT):

@ R.C. - I agree the Pope is the successor ok. But having to go to the Pope or a Bishop for truth sounds a little far fetched. Yes they can teach us, but their surely not the only ones.

Posted by Mary42 on Thursday, Aug 11, 2011 6:06 AM (EDT):

There you go again, Larry. Jesus Christ!!!! I thought we had all come to an understanding of the Truth on this Post on July the 2nd. Larry, why do you find it so hard to accept that Christ Willed, Christ Established and Christ lives in His Church and is visible to us through His Vicar or Earth and the Sacrament of the Eucharist and other Sacraments? And that He governs His Church through the Successor of St. Peter? Why do you continue to try to reject that the Holy Father is the Final Authority on the Catholic Church Teachings and Doctrine on Faith and Morals?. Surely, the very informative and accurate Post by R.C. puts the matter to rest once and for all regarding the Structure and the Destiny of Christ’s Church until He comes again. To paraphrase him, I repeat: “One’s own judgment, however profound his scholarship, is insufficient, as 500 years of Protestant dividing and subdividing amply illustrates.”

Posted by Larry on Thursday, Aug 11, 2011 9:28 AM (EDT):

Maybe your right, I’ll have to check with the Pope.

Posted by Larry on Friday, Aug 12, 2011 2:30 AM (EDT):

@ Mary42——Well, I was real surprised, but the Pope agrees with you.
Oh, he also said to stop using Gods name in vain.

Posted by MRyan on Sunday, Oct 23, 2011 5:16 PM (EDT):

Posted by manticore: “’...that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy’
That a particular individual is successor of Peter is not and cannot be a dogma. What it would be, is something called a “dogmatic fact” - which is something quite different from a dogma, though related to it.”

And it is so intricately related to a dogma that “it is required to give firm and definitive assent to these truths, based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Church’s Magisterium, and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters. Whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church” and “it is important to emphasize that there is no difference with respect to the full and irrevocable character of the assent which is owed to these teachings. The difference concerns the supernatural virtue of faith: in the case of truths of the first paragraph, the assent is based directly on faith in the authority of the Word of God (doctrines de fide credenda); in the case of the truths of the second paragraph, the assent is based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium (doctrines de fide tenenda) … With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations ...(CDF DOCTRINAL COMMENTARY ON THE CONCLUDING FORMULA OF THE PROFESSIO FIDEI)

By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.

JimmyAkin

How Useful Is This Argument Against Sedevacantism?

Comments

Post a Comment

Post a Comment

About Jimmy Akin

Most Popular Now

Blogs

Blogs

Blogs

Blogs

Blogs

Blogs

Blogs

Blogs

Blogs

Blogs

National Catholic Register

JimmyAkin

How Useful Is This Argument Against Sedevacantism?

Comments

Post a Comment

Post a Comment

About Jimmy Akin

Most Popular Now

Blogs

Blogs

Blogs

Blogs

Blogs

Blogs

Blogs

Blogs

Blogs

Blogs

Blogs

Blogs

Blogs

Blogs

Blogs

Blogs

Blogs

Blogs

Blogs

Blogs

Free Newsletter Sign-Up

National Catholic Register