In recent weeks, the canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X once again became a common topic of discussion (and contention) in traditional Catholic media circles, or more properly stated, allegedly traditional circles.
For those unaware of what caused this latest round of debate, the details are unimportant. Suffice it to say that it has nothing to do with allegations of a sexual nature, but rather claims by some that the Society is schismatic and therefore should be treated as a pariah.
This, of course, is nothing new. In 2017, Cardinal Raymond Burke publicly stated that the SSPX is in schism. Given that he once served as the conciliar church’s chief canonist and is one of neo-conservatism’s most influential personalities, a firestorm naturally ensued.
After obtaining an audio recording of Burke’s comments, the story was broken HERE. Following are some highlights taken from the transcript:
Burke: The fact of the matter is that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X is in schism since the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ordained four bishops without the mandate of the Roman Pontiff. And so, it is not legitimate to attend Mass or to receive the sacraments in a church that’s under the direction of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X.
About the four bishops that were consecrated by the archbishop, Burke said:
The requirement for having an excommunication lifted is that a person has withdrawn from his contumacy and now desires to be fully reconciled with the Church, but in fact that hasn’t happened.
Burke went on to suggest that the SSPX should be encouraged to do what it must in order to be “reconciled with the Church.”
The SSPX is schismatic. Its bishops are contumacious. Stay away from their liturgies. Refuse their sacraments. They need to be reconciled with the Catholic Church.
These are gravely serious charges, and they were no doubt taken to heart by many sincere, truth-seeking Catholics who know no better.
So, how did “traditional” Catholic media respond?
Answer: Its members responded as they have always responded to such ludicrous allegations; they defended Catholic tradition. They pointed out that to be separated from the error-ridden cesspool otherwise known as conciliar Rome is not only the opposite of schism, it is required of anyone who desires to hold fast to the one true faith.
As for Trad, Inc., their media personalities responded by straddling the fence, as men with neither testicles nor convictions are evidently rather comfortable doing. Among them, two in particular stand out – Steve Skojec of 1Peter5 and Michael Matt of the Remnant.
Skojec, at least as far as I can tell, didn’t directly address Burke’s comments. He had, however, already gone on record declaring his agreement with Cardinal Muller who said that “the SSPX [is] still in de facto schism,” as if such a canonical status actually exists.
In fact, Skojec even called it “an interesting new category.” So much for tradition. You can’t make this stuff up!
He went on to justify his non-position – one that allows him to claim at one and the same time, “I didn’t say the SSPX is in schism! I didn’t say they’re not in schism!” – writing:
After all, with whatever justification, the SSPX does not have any recognition in Rome or throughout the world-wide churches which are in unflawed communion with the Holy Father.
Ah, yes, the “recognition” of Modernist Rome, the same that gave us the Second Vatican Council, the Novus Ordo and Jorge Bergoglio. That would settle the matter! Is there even a shred of cogent traditional thinking in that weak-kneed proposition?
More recently, on April 27, Skojec weighed in on “the status and theological positions of the Society of St. Pius X” with an equally pathetic non-response.
We’ll come back to that momentarily, but before we do, let’s consider the other notorious fence-straddler: Michael #UNITEtheNEOCONS Matt.
As far as I can tell, Mike has refrained from weighing in on the latest “SSPX is schismatic” dust-up. He had plenty to say about it, however, when Burke unjustly and publicly maligned the Society. In fact, he leaped into the fray in order to offer a passionate defense, not of Catholic tradition, but of the roaring lion of conciliar neo-conservatism:
There’s a little bit of an attack going on our buddy Cardinal Burke. I just think it’s really unfortunate … Burke is under a lot of, taking a lot of heat from some of our brother traditionalists for saying that the Society Saint Pius X is in schism still, which of course I don’t accept.
Great, but that’s just one side of the Remnant fence.
Cardinal Burke is a Pope Benedict guy, if you will, he believes in the Second Vatican Council, he believes the Second Vatican Council can be interpreted in light of tradition.
Indeed! Burke is a man-of-the-Council through and through. He uses his considerable influence to lead souls away from Catholic tradition, as evidenced by his attack against Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society that he established. And yet, in spite of this, here’s how Michael Matt chooses to use his own influence:
Certainly, my friends, when it comes to Cardinal Raymond Burke, we have a fellow traveler there.
A fellow traveler on the road to where, the conciliar church-of-man? No thanks, Mike. He goes on:
He’s chiefly concerned about schism, but in any case, it is Cardinal Burke’s job to be concerned about schism; that’s what he does. And now, again, I disagree with him with respect to the Society of Saint Pius X’s schism, but I don’t disagree with the sentiment.
If you’ve never before heard of a canonical judgment called the sentiment of schism, there’s a reason; it no more exits than de facto schism, each of which is a linguistic copout worthy of a slippery politician focused on widening his base, or, as the case may be, a FAKE traditionalist focused on filling his Big Tent (and his bank account).
Matt concluded his sentimental journey saying:
Let’s let Cardinal Burke concentrate on the formal correction that we’re all still hoping and praying is coming … So much depends on what he does next.
How’d that one work out for ya, Mike? Clearly, depending on Burke for anything in the cause of Catholic tradition is like counting on Bill Gates in the fight against coronavirus.
Now, back to Skojec: His position on the SSPX having matured over the last five years like a bottle of Boone’s Farm Pink, this past Monday, he revealed “the best conclusion I can come to…” regarding the status of the SSPX, and it’s just as one might expect:
All arguments aside, only Rome can settle the matter, and Rome has obstinately refused to do so. My own suspicion is that Rome is caught in a paradox of its own making: condemn the Society, and it condemns its own patrimony and perennial teaching; regularize the Society, as it is, and Rome is tacitly admitting that there is much wrong with the Second Vatican Council and the failed experiment that is the post-conciliar Church.
The “patrimony and perennial teaching” of Modernist Rome is perfectly clear to all but the FAKEST of traditional Catholics. And yet, once again, Skojec is happy to ride the fence like Gene Autry on Champion the Wonder Horse while deferring to their august judgment.
In other words, he’s claiming, It’s above my bloated pay grade! Once again, it’s all about having it both ways: See, neo-cons, I deferred to the authorities in Rome! See, trads, I was critical of the authorities in Rome, and I even took a shot at the Council!
The reason Skojec so often travels this duplicitous road (e.g., as in the case of Bishop Sheen) should be obvious enough: Playing both sides an issue, or tapping out altogether, comes without cost, dignity aside.
Speaking up like a man with Catholic conviction, by contrast, is all but certain to upset at least some of the donors that allow Steve to compensate his fine stable of highly educated and talented writers, each of whom has bills to pay and families to feed of their own. (At least one assumes that he compensates them for their invaluable work, apart from which the 1P5 cash cow will cease to produce milk, right?)
Long story short, folks, the SSPX is far from perfect – theologically, morally or otherwise. One need not look very hard on this blog to find my criticism of them on any number of issues. They’re also quite obviously not in schism, and when claims that they are get tossed about, very often the FAKES of traditional Catholic media end up showing their hands.
Debate about the status of the SSPX is far from being the only litmus test for fakery in this field, but it’s a damned good one. The results are in. Do with them what you will.
Gee, Louis. I thought you’d at least have given a nod to Fr. Z for his outstanding defense of the legitimacy of the SSPX last week.
And the point of this post is…..??
Louie, I think this topic helps draw out the absurdity of the SSPX and their partial communion with Rome. All this time we thought they rejected the New Ecclesiology.
–
The SSPX is definitely schismatic in every possible sense of the term if they accept Rome and its Pope as being the visible Catholic Church.
–
The SSPX is definitely NOT schismatic in any possible sense of the term if they reject Rome and its Pope as being the visible Catholic Church.
–
My favorite saying these days is, ” If he’s your daddy, then he is your daddy.”. Since Francis is their daddy, as they admit, then they are schismatic. Naming him in the Canon does not change that but only makes it worse. Simple as that.
–
You only take the opposite position because you are projecting your position of Rome and the Pope onto them and concluding they are not schismatic.
–
God bless!
–
P.S. Maybe your next podcast can be with Bishop Sanborn so he can give you the other side of the Una Cum argument that Mr. Lane gave you. Mr. Lane has been great to hear from but that topic he brushed off way too quickly. Or maybe the link below will suffice. I am on the fence with this one but lean towards Bishop Sanborn’s position. I know other Sede bishops disagree with him though. Any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated.
–
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e86OkMmRbac
The only reason why they are not schismatic is because the pope is not the pope.
Yes, I ultimately agree with you. They are not schismatic towards the Catholic Church but they are schismatic towards the Conciliar Church. Thus they are schismatic still.
SSPX keep distance from Rome to maintain Tridentine tradition. Not in schism.
Eastern Orthodox keep distance from Rome to maintain Patristic tradition. Not in schism.
Protestants keep distance from Rome to maintain Biblical tradition. Not in schism.
Nobody is in schism! Ecumenism wins! Hurray for Vatican II! Private conscience trumps Roman tyranny!
I think the opinion on Mike Matt needing to grow a pair is correct. Petrified he will lose subscribers he does straddle the fence. Try and post something in the Remnant com box on sedevacantism and watch it disappear.
Michael Matt does not hesitate to call “Pope Francis” many insulting and disrespectful words. Yet he insists this man is the Supreme Pontiff, Vicar of Christ. You can’t have it both ways. Make up your mind.
Could it be the R C Church is in schism because it turned it’s back on Scripture, the Word of God ,the teachings of the Patristic Fathers and their own Council of Trent??? Not Ecumenism but a self inflicted theological suicidal Apostasy.
The problem with canon law is that there is no canon law stating why St. Athanatius is a canonized saint and a father and doctor of the Church. It’s theologians who say he is not in hell because if a prelate fails to condemn error as pope Liberius failed to condemn the error of Arianism by allowing Arians to be bishops in full communion with himself, the faithful have a right to withdraw obedience from him the pope as St. Athanatius did. This is a point of doctrine pointed out by theologians not Church law written in canon law!
On the other hand, Cardinal Burke has a moral obligation to be honest and point out that if Archbishop Lefebvre believed the Church was in the state of necessity even if he erred in judgement, according to canon law, he is not schismatic nor are the bishops he consecrated!
It does not help that SSPX leaders act like they are in schism with marriage deception.
It does not help that the booklet written by Michael Davis “Archbishop Lefebvre and Religious Liberty” is out of print rather then it being presented to the defenders of Vatican II by the real traditionalists to prove to them they really cannot defend Vatican II as not being heretical.
The new Vatican 2 NO church has been unable to clearly define, label, and address the SSPX situation for over 30 years. The SSPX has been unable to clearly define, label, and address the new Vatican 2 NO church for over 30 years. The confusion of the SSPX and V2 NO church stems from the basic fact that they are both operating of a false premises. The NO has adopted ecumenism as its new dogma so it has no way of effectively dealing with those who hold a different theology. While the SSPX has adopted the insane notion that people who profess a non Catholic Faith can somehow be in charge of the Catholic Church.
Well said, Tom. I think we can see how this illogical position will result in the demise of the SSPX. The chastisements have begun.
> While the SSPX has adopted the insane notion that people who profess a non Catholic Faith can somehow be in charge of the Catholic Church.
Fr. Gregory Hesse maintained that pope is just a vice president (a vicar) of the Church. Jesus Christ himself is the President. There are a lot if implication of looking at the church this way.
This is his of his lessons https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGjNLFtWn3k “Fallability Of The Popes Fr Hesse”
A.
PS. sorry for the bad grammar – it escaped before I finished editing. Learning that this forum does not allow to fix the text later, which is a good thing 🙂
Great summation.
“While the SSPX has adopted the insane notion that people who profess a non-Catholic Faith can somehow be in charge of the Catholic Church.”
Seeing how your clear statement might confuse the One True Faith Challenged, some additional refinement is suggested….
a) Non-Catholics Can’t Be Popes
b) True Popes don’t teach, preach, profess or defend heresy or any other non-Catholic nonsense.
Because you sedes are schismatic and cultish and you have no right to spread your garbage on a Catholic platform.
Vermeullarmine,
And that’s not an argument against sedevacantism.
Your point Andy? If you’re not a Catholic you can’t be vice president of the Catholic Church either. If you are not Catholic how can you hold ANY position in the Catholic Church?
Bruh, the Church is visible AND indefectible. I refer you to Salza/Siscoe’s “True or False Pope.” And don’t give me conspiracy theories that Salza is a crypto-Mason. This site is dominated enough by wacko sedes as it is.
^ this would be an example of irony.
Sedevacantism is just about as doctrinally sound as the imminent coming of the alien god Xenu.
You sedes are flat out nuts!!!
I have heard it said that the most extreme manifestations of traditionalism are merely symptoms of mental illness. Perhaps it’s the other way around, where sedevacantism eventually leads to the loss of any tenuous grasp of reality its adherents may have once had. When you break yourselves off from the root of Holy Mother Church, visible and indefectible, you become a law unto yourselves, and inevitably drift further and further from the stabilizing apparatus of the one, true, organized and centralized Church. Invariably you split into ever smaller and more extreme factions, developing a cult like paranoia and embrace of every conspiracy theory under the sun. Please, by all means, disagree with Pope Francis where disagreement is due, but don’t be stupid about it.
There’s no need to resort to ad hominem. Besides, the arguments of Siscoe/Salza have been refuted numerous times by Fr. Cekada, Steven Speray, and Novus Ordo Watch.
But let’s be honest: in what sense is the Vatican II church indefectible?
Vermeullarmine,
That’s still not an argument.
Vermeullarmine,
Blanket assertions that sedevacantism is inextricably linked to mental illness is an ad hominem par excellence.
Make an actual argument.
The late Fr. Hesse also pointed out, on at least one or two occasions if memory serves, that the act of electing a bishop of Rome is simply an administrative act done by the church.
No hyperpapalism to be found in that. And certainly not “guided by the Holy Ghost” necessarily.
Bearing that in mind: People who point out the messiness and shadiness of the resignation of Ratzinger and the subsequent election of Bergoglio as if it were some unprecedented thing lack a sense and knowledge of history. Papal elections have more often than not ALWAYS involved a degree of, well, very human politicking and maneuvering. For that matter, ecumenical synods down the centuries have more often than not been been rather raucous and wild affairs filled with, again, very human behaviors. Heh.
If there is one massive gripe I have with far too many of my fellow Catholics, it’s their lack of knowledge and even curiousity about history. It’s a sad irony- since what distinguishes our faith in Jesus from other cults and religions is the fact that it rests upon actual historical events, persons an eyewitnesses.
Cekada and NOWatch (I can’t speak to the others you mentioned) are committed sedevacantists so of course they will have a vested interest in “refuting” arguments against sedevacantism. Even the SSPX has said that sedevacantism is a schismatic mindset (or at least potentially so), and that the assumption that Peter’s chair is vacant is patently absurd as the Church has never been without a visible head for over 60 years, nor could Christ allow it to be. The only sedevacantists shrewd enough to realize this either abandon sedevacantism or throw in their lot with the conclavist crazies.
Alright. Here we go.
“Therefore, if 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.” (Vatican I, Session 4, Chapter 2, Paragraph 5)
1917 Code of Canon Law, Can. 2232, Par. 1, “A penalty that is latae sententiae, whether medicinal or punitive, holds for one who is aware of his own delict in both fora [i.e., public and private]; but prior to a declaratory sentence, the delinquent is excused from observing the penalty any time that he cannot observe it without infamy, and in the external forum no one can compel the observance of that penalty from him unless the delict is notorious, with due regard for Can. 2223, Par. 4.”
And this from Catholic Answers: http://www.catholic.com/video/the-problem-with-sedevacantism
“Cekada and NOWatch (I can’t speak to the others you mentioned) are committed sedevacantists so of course they will have a vested interest in “refuting” arguments against sedevacantism.”
And one can just as easily retort that Siscoe/Salza are committed anti-sedevacantists and so of course they have a vested interest in refuting sedevacantism. It would have just as much value as your refutatation, which is *none*: it does not speak to the strength of their respective arguments at all.
“Even the SSPX has said that sedevacantism is a schismatic mindset (or at least potentially so)”
Given that the SSPX’s bread and butter has been made in contradicting the magisterial teachings of their putative post-V2 popes whenever they see fit, I guess that makes them experts on the subject of schism, then?
You can’t be schismatic towards someone that you do not recognize as a legitimate authority. To recognize them as legitimate authority and still refuse obedience (as the SSPX does) would indeed be schismatic, subjectively speaking.
“the assumption that Peter’s chair is vacant is patently absurd as the Church has never been without a visible head for over 60 years, nor could Christ allow it to be. ”
Do not presume to speak as to what Christ would allow His Church to suffer. I’m sure the Avignon Papacies or the Western Schism would have been deemed impossible as well before they actually happened.
An extended vacancy of the Holy See does not necessarily imply that Christ’s Promises have been made void. To assert that public heretics (like Bergoglio or Ratzinger) could be His Vicar, on the other hand, *would* render them void.
The perpetual successors objection is answered here: https://novusordowatch.org/2017/06/the-perpetual-successors-objection/
With regards to your canon law citation: in what sense does a canonical penalty have anything to do with the actual sin of heresy by which public heretics are deprived of jurisdiction?
Who’s prerogative is to judge if someone is Catholic? All I know it is not me.
A brief refutation of sedevacantism here:
http://www.churchmilitant.com/main/generic/faq-sedevacantism-general-response
I think I remember fr. Hesse mentioning the “guided by the Holy Ghost” aspect.
And the history, this is why I recalled here that “Fallability Of The Popes Fr Hesse” lecture.
V, not only do you rely on Catholic Answers, but you then go on to cite Church Militant as well. This reveals you as a total CatholiCuck.
Andy, if someone who identifies as Catholic were to say to you that he did not believe in the Trinity, you wouldn’t be able to judge that person a non-Catholic?
Louie, why don’t you do more to purge the comments section of this sedevacantist poison?
Yes, I noticed the Novus Ordo “experts” too.
Didn’t you know, Verm? Louie thinks your pope is fake too.
“Therefore, if 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.” (Vatican I, Session 4, Chapter 2, Paragraph 5)”
I’d argue that this declaration by Vatican I was not merely abuse of power and authority, but also a theologization. One is hard-pressed to find a basis for it in Apostolic Tradition.
As far as the citation from the code of canon law, that’s simply a church law involving legal proceedings. It’s highly mutable.
Not sure what your point is. Or what you are really driving at here.
Fr. Hesse got many things right: first and foremost he recognized how V2 was a watershed event that sounded the Roman Catholic Church breaking with Tradition.
He also got a few important things quite wrong though. One of the more glaring ones is his understanding of Pius V’s bull “Quo Primum”. Many “trads” have picked up this argument and ran with it in their haste and zeal to condemn the Novus Ordo. While I certainly sympathize with their desire to both condemn it and see the church formally condemn and suppress it (let us pray for that day to come sooner than later), their argument is highly flawed.
The reason I say all this is this: One has to pick and choose with Fr. Hesse. He certainly had a good sense of humor though- and I’m sure the wine helped. That scores a lot points for me.
I suppose you’re appointing yourself the sanitation engineer here then? 🙂
Look, the heart of this ongoing crisis actually isn’t who is or is not pope.
Rather is it what the papacy itself IS, what faith is, what Tradition is…and ultimately Who Jesus IS. In that order.
Getting hung up on who might be or might not be pope is a total distraction from all that, as far as I can see.
V, Louie has repeatedly said that he has no interest in policing the comments. Kindly take your CatholiCuckery elsewhere. This is no place for cucks of any kind, whether they be white ethnomasochists of the libcuck or cuckservative genera, or cuckservatives of the CatholiCuck species. Tone-policing, concern-trolling, virtue-signaling, panty-twisting, and all the rest of it don’t work here.
Vermeullarmine- while I don’t presume to speak for Mr. V, I think it’s safe to say that he’s developed a sympathy towards the sedevacantist position over time. I’d suggest you read more of his older posts as evidence towards this.
Tradite- Michael Matt has demonstrated in recent months that he’s losing the narrative. He can’t seem to grapple with the true nature of the crisis the church is in.
I won’t rule out purely economic reasons for this though- such as maintaining a subscriber base. In the end he is a journalist and commentator. it’s he family business, and that’s his living. Just like others like that Voris character, or to a great extent Taylor Marshall (though he also peddles learning materials through his “New St. Thomas Institute”).
They’re wags and pundits and talking heads. They need a “story”, even when there really isn’t one.
The answer would be similar if someone who identifies as Catholic asks questions on Jehowa Witness level.
The attitude Mr. Matt has is a manifestation of the hyperpapalism which is an absolute blight upon would-be Catholics.
Andy, Pius XII defined what it takes to be a member of the Catholic Faith. Baptism and profess the Catholic Faith. If you believe Bergoglio professes the Catholic Faith, then follow him. Only a fool could say that Bergoglio teaches the Catholic Faith as taught prior to 1958.
“I have heard it said that the most extreme manifestations of traditionalism are merely symptoms of mental illness.”
That’s not a good way to start a conversation.
We know the Third Secret of Fatima! “In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith…” What is the dogma of Faith? Outside of the Catholic Church, there is no salvation.
Here comes the gut punch! The post conciliar church, is the anti-Church. The chastisement that Sister Lucia spoke of is this, you need the Church to save your soul, but the Church is no longer the Church.
So now you can see how this fulfills the three themes Sister Lucia spoke about up to 1974. 1) A crisis of Faith. 2) The loss of countless souls. 3) A grave failure of the upper hierarchy.
The other 24 lines of text fill in the details, bad council, bad popes, bad mass, etc. If there is a silver lining, it is that the monsters who molested boys were not Catholic. The horrific World Youth Day sacrilegious Eucharistic desecrations among others, never happened because it’s just bread.
So where is the Latin Rite Catholic Church? It resides in the FSSPX. The only group with Bishops whose apostolic succession is “rock” solid. If you want to save your soul, it has to be within the SSPX. And may God have mercy on all of us!
All I want to say is that I do not have neither prerogatives nor means to tell apart if given person is a material or formal heretic. This is why I focus on the doctrine and teaching as opposed to other people personal choices, failures or biases.
There were many popes in the past (see the fr. Hesse lecture I posted above) which were absolute material heretics, perhaps worse than today. JP2 and F are too according to my humble opinion.
And yes, stipulations like that “If you believe Bergoglio professes the Catholic Faith, then follow him. Only a fool could say that Bergoglio teaches the Catholic Faith as taught prior to 1958.” are on the level of Jehowa Witness maturity IMHO too. Who do you to ask me about in the first place? Ask Bergoglio.
So what is your main reason to condemn the NO?
Speaking of fr. Hesse – it would be nice to have a longer blog post and to iterate over central points of his theology, and list major points of contention.
“So what is your main reason to condemn the NO?”
My main reason involves the “Eucharistic Prayers” more than anything else. Sure, there are a number other lesser things which make the Novus Ordo defective in relation to the Roman Rite. But that is, IMO, the most critical thing. Don’t know if you’ve heard of Fr. Anthony Cekada’s book “Work of Human Hands”- it’s one good resource (among others) for understanding all this.
In short, those novel Eucharistic Prayers in the NO missale, especially EP II, signify a major departure from Tradition more than anything else.
The Roman Canon is the heart of the Roman Rite because it expresses the essence of what Jesus did, what He told us to do, and because a good part of it can be traced directly back to Apostolic times. If that is changed significantly or replaced with something else, the Eucharist is changed into something else entirely.
Dear Rushintuit—If you are correct and if the recent allegations against the SSPX are proven to be true, then we have no where to go. The salvation of our soul is in our own hands. Yes, God have mercy on all of us!….and shame on the SSPX. A priestly society that can’t be trusted in worthless. You will disagree, of course.
They are schismatic along with all the cardinals, most of the bishops and clergy, as they are not in union with Peter, namely Benedict XVI.
Simples
An infallible council which we are bound to follow, not pick-and-mix at the traddie shop. Defined by the Church.
paultdale- I was replying to user Vermeullarmine.
Not sure if you were replying to me or to that user.
Guilty as charged! I am no longer in union with Ratzinger or Bergoglio. And Since Vatican 2 no one has to be in union with them since the Church that Christ established simply subsists in the Catholic Church. There are now elements of salvation in all religions so there is no lomger any reason to be united to Rome. That is right out your “popes” own mouth, Paul.
That is not a cogent logical deduction, otherwise you fall down the rabbit hole and never find where the Catholic Church lies. One of the fault lines of the sedevacantist position.
Andy: “The answer would be similar if someone who identifies as Catholic asks questions on Jehowa Witness level.”
I don’t understand. Which is…..? You didn’t answer my question. Why wouldn’t you be able to call the person who does not believe in the Holy Trinity a “non-Catholic”?
John Common- I’d say that in the end, Apostolic Tradition and the natural law overrule all subjectivism, wild speculation, theologization, ahistoricism, etc, etc.
So in adherence to your man defined sede position, not Church, you are willing to defy Holy Mother in order to cower under your spurious rigid holier-than-thou church with no pope. I think the original Peter came out with some pretty contradictory views as reported in the gospels and NT, but don’t you worry if Novus Ordo Watch deems that a pope is an heretic it must be so. And no I do not defend some of the positions of most of the post VII church, as I could cherry pick throughout all the popes since Peter, but the Church defines, not NOWatch nor any of the theologian nor cardinals throughout history. Yes the Church is an unholy mess, permitted by Christ, in the End Times. There have been good and bad popes throughout history but the Church continues on guided by the HS. The real shocker is this current usurper of the throne of Peter. Yes he is an antipope as Benedict is still the Pope, for all the reasons that Ann Barnhardt and Brother Bugnolo have explained. The real crisis is now, what went before served as prologue.
Paul, yes. I do not want to belong to anything that you call “Holy Mother” in one sentence and then call it an “unholy mess” in a later sentence. Furthermore, I have no desire to belong to a church that can teach us evil things (officially or unofficially). If you choose to belong to that, that’s your business. Good luck with them.
^
I’d be interested in hearing a conversation between Mr. Verrecchio and Bishop Sanborn.
John Common, here’s a P.S. to my first comment-
To be clear, I agree with what you’re saying about all these other “traditions” and how V2 effectively opened the door to all manner of “traditions” which have little or even nothing to do with Apostolic Tradition.
Apostolic Tradition, as far as I can see, overrules all these other “traditions”.
paultdale,
In all seriousness, you come across as someone arguing against a caricature and calling it sedevacantism.
With regards to the objection dealing with the visibility of the Church vis-a-vis sedevacantism, I would recommend reading this article (from 1991!) on the matter of indefectibility and how it relates to the current situation: http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=21&catname=10
To blithely say that sedevacantism renders the Catholic Church impossible to find is to betray an unwillingness to consider what the actual argument is. Just as equally, just because sedevacantism is a *difficult* position to hold does not thereby turn the Vatican II church into the Catholic Church by default.
You have to have bishops
I would say that prior to “having bishops”, you have to have Apostolic Tradition.
I just do not think that a simple label “catholic” accomplishes anything. For many, many reasons. At the same time, a label “heretic” is way more productive.
Plus, if you want to find out the state of mind of pope Francis, why do not you ask him directly?
Why you are asking me? How I can know his intensions, state of the soul, actual beliefs or if he is actually controlled by external forces?
Thx for the book reference. But personally I am not interested in apologetics per say as much deepening my faith and knowledge of the doctrine, although I agree that analyzing heresies is a great exercise.
But I guess I see what you are getting at. I am in the process of reading “The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass” by Nicholas Gihr. This is an old book and very slow read which puts me on my knees all the time. In that light, there is absolutely no way to reconcile NO with the Tradition. None.
I still think that “Quo Primum” argument is pretty darn strong. It is almost, why to even look into NO and waste your time.
But you said “his understanding of Pius V’s bull “Quo Primum””. What is wrong with fr. Hesse understanding of “Quo Primum”?
You have dug yourself a hole which you cannot nor will not climb out of. You make your pronouncements and follow other sedes in judging popes and bishops. And there is much to agree but judging? No I will leave that to Jesus Christ in his true and suffering Church. You have fled to your ivory towers to throw your slingshots for fear of the wolves, while others of us stay and fight the good fight.
And you come across as a sedevacantist defending a caricature.
What is a Sedevacantist?
Sedevacantists hold in general that there have been no true popes since Pius XII. They accept the error of Luther that there is no authority or unity in the Church except that which is given the individual by the virtue of Faith. Thus, holding themselves as purer than all others, after the manner of Jansenists, they judge nearly everyone a heretic and thus outside of the Church. Their special target is all who hold an office which comes down through Apostolic Succession, because that is the real threat to their error and their egos.
paultdale,
How can one fight the good fight by maintaining communion with public heretics? What accord does Christ have with Belial? In what sense is it an exercise of private judgement to recognize someone as professing non-Catholic doctrine, and treat them accordingly?
(Besides. the private judgment objection has been answered elsewhere: https://novusordowatch.org/2015/12/sede-private-judgment/)
That’s why it’s an horrific chastisement, worse than the deluge.
“They accept the error of Luther that there is no authority or unity in the Church except that which is given the individual by the virtue of Faith. ”
False. Sedevacantism simply asserts that the Holy See is vacant, for to profess that the religion promulgated by Vatican II came from the Catholic Church entails that the Church can defect and teach error.
This same church, by the way, has come to an agreement with the Lutherans on matters of faith, and has called Luther a faithful promoter of the Gospel. Why should you find an association with Luther problematic?
“Thus, holding themselves as purer than all others, after the manner of Jansenists, they judge nearly everyone a heretic and thus outside of the Church. ”
False. Sedevacantism as a theory does not speak to moral purity whatsoever. It simply recognizes objective reality using the Church’s own standards.
andy wrote:
‘…What is wrong with fr. Hesse understanding of “Quo Primum”?’
The long and short of Fr. Hesse’s misunderstanding is that he seemed to hold that the Roman Rite itself is a matter of revealed dogma rather than, well, simply a human expression called a “rite”. His line of reasoning was something to the end that Pius V “canonized” the rite contained within the “Quo Primum” Missale Romanum of 1570 with a sort of unalterable, unchangeable, “infallible” stamp for all time.
While the Eucharist ITSELF is certainly a matter of divine revelation and therefore inextricable to having genuine faith in Jesus since He Himself proclaimed and then later instituted it, how it is EXPRESSED within a given rite is NOT a matter of revelation. It is rather a matter of discipline, law, rule, custom etc…..just as long as the given rite is congruent with Apostolic Tradition.
There is more that could be said, but that’s the basics. Hope that answers your question.
ASM: Stop trying to burst paul’s anti-sede bubble.
A Simple Man, thanks for defending the sede position so admirably. While your opponents berated sedevacantists with unjust personal attacks, you continued to present polite well-reasoned arguments. At this point though, I’d recommend the old saying: “Don’t feed the trolls.” They’re clearly not interested in sincere debate, and, as such, they will only persist in dismissive ad hominem attacks. You’ve refuted them; honest onlookers will see that. These trolls aren’t worth wasting any more of your time. All the best.
For a thorough, extensive and documented refutation of Salza/Sicoe’s “True or False Pope”, if you are really interested in the truth, go here:
https://novusordowatch.org/?s=Salza+and+Siscoe
Tom, I’d like to apologize for harsh comments I made to you and others over the years. The Popes can’t be Catholic, I see that now. I still think sedevacantism isn’t nuanced enough to fit the situation, the Popes since Pius XII have to be anti.
At this point, the Latin Rite does not have a Bishop of Rome, but the SSPX has apostolic succession and a chapel in Fatima!
Your bubble, not mine. If you are not in communion with Peter you are a schismatic. Who is Peter is not dictated by Mr Lane, Bishop Sanborn, or anyone else’s opinion, but by the Church’s law. You usurp Christ for your own jansenist superiority, with no humility, but as attack dogss personified by that caricature par excellence, In Caritas.
Interestingly enough Paul…it’s those that are in communion with the heretic Bergoglio who have been the most uncharitable in this combox.
Rushintuit: Happy to see you have come to the Catholic conclusion regarding these pseudo popes. I think many of us who have come to this conclusion once thought it was crazy or schismatic.
What is your position if you do not think sedevacantism is the right diagnosis? Do you take the Cassiciacum position like Bishop Sanborn?
^paultdale,
“If you are not in communion with Peter you are a schismatic.”
Glad we agree.
“Who is Peter is not dictated by Mr Lane, Bishop Sanborn, or anyone else’s opinion, but by the Church’s law.”
Correct! Glad we’re on the same page.
It is by the Church’s own law and doctrine that we know Bergoglio and Ratzinger ain’t true Popes, because by the Church’s own standards, they are objectively public heretics. As such, it is objectively *impossible* to have jurisdiction.
“You usurp Christ for your own jansenist superiority, with no humility, but as attack dogss personified by that caricature par excellence, In Caritas.”
As previously stated, sedevacantism as a theory does not touch on moral purity, but rather fidelity to the Church’s own teachings about the Papacy; Jansenism doesn’t even apply as a valid criticism.
In like manner, to brush everyone with the same “In Caritas”-sized brush is to attack the messenger and not the message, because if you’ve spent any time in this combox, you’ll know that there have been manifold times where other sedes have butted heads with IC for their uncharitable demeanor.
It would be just as valid as me judging your arguments according to the character and demeanor of someone like James Martin, S.J. After all, as far as the conciliar church is concerned, you would both be equally “catholic”.
A Simple Man.
Show me where the Church has condemned Pope Benedict XVI. It hasn’t. Whereas Louis has made a good case for Bergoglio’s heresies, nay apostasies, for it is plain to see, because he is not the pope. He is not under the threefold protection of popes, the charism that prevents him from committing those errors. Benedict didn’t renounce the munus, only the ministerio. The reasons for that would out do a Dan Brown novel. So in Church law whatever the outcome of that declaration, not renunciation let alone resignation, is null and void. It didn’t fulfil JP2’s canon 332. End of.
Catherine Emmerinch’s visions talk about two popes, as do the Fatima visions. But in your position we are still awaiting for that to happen. Yes?
paultdale,
There is a difference between deposition and actually losing jurisdiction.
A definitive judgment from the Church is not required for laymen to recognize someone as a public heretic:
xxxx
At length we come to another argument. To be sure, whoever dwells outside the Church is ipso facto rendered unfit for all ordinary jurisdiction, say, episcopal jurisdiction [1]. The reason is that a person who has ordinary jurisdiction or truly episcopal jurisdiction possesses the dignity of being the head, and no one can be the head of even a particular church if he is not a member of the Church. Indeed, what was ever a head that was not a member? Hence, if occult heresy were to put a man outside the Church, whenever a doubt about the legitimacy and authority of pastors could arise, there would not be moral certitude about their internal faith. But God forbid that the establishment of Christ should endure such a monstrous anomaly whereby the sinews of discipline would be loosened. We do not solely employ more probable arguments in this matter, because distinctly and expressly we are informed that a bishop by reason of heresy does not lose his own power of binding and loosing, except when he preaches heresy and openly professes it. In this regard, among other documents, there is extant the letter of Pope Celestine to the clergy and people of Constantinople in the case of Nestorius, where the Pontiff first urges Catholics to fight bravely for the faith, bear hardships patiently, and not fear exile. “No Christian,” he says, “should bewail a temporal exile imposed upon him, because no one is an exile to God. Let us fear exile from the realm of the living, that is, the realm that we wish to be our homeland. That is our perpetual and eternal abode. Indeed ours is no ephemeral place, but those things are truly ours, which a most certain hope promises.” Then declaring invalid the opinion whereby Nestorius had removed some people from either their office or the communion of the faithful, he continues: “Nevertheless, lest the opinion of one who had already called down upon himself a divine judicial sentence seem valid even at the time, the authority of our See has decreed that, from the moment that Nestorius and those like him begin to proclaim such [heresy], We do not regard as exiled or excommunicated any of the bishops or clerics or Christians by any profession who were dispossessed of office or cast out of communion by him and his followers. Rather all were and still remain in communion with Us, because a person who erroneously preached such [heresy] could not eject or remove anyone” [2]. Therefore you see that a bishop who is a heretic in secret is still vested with the power of binding and loosing, since he loses episcopal jurisdiction and the power of excommunication only from the time at which he begins to preach heresy openly. Furthermore, the conclusion is readily seen. For if he who is not in the Church cannot possess authority in relation to the Church, and a occult heretic can have authority — better still, at some time possesses it in reality — it clearly follows that a occult heretic has not yet been cut off from the body of the Church.
_______________
[1] Note the deliberate phrasing: of all ordinary jurisdiction; for with regard to extraordinary and merely delegated jurisdiction in a case of necessity, it is not the same idea, as will be readily clear upon consideration.
[2] Pope Celestine, Epistle 14, n. 7 (Migne, Patrologia Latina, volume 50). Also see the same Celestine’s Epistle 12 to John of Antioch, n. 2: “But if anyone has been either excommunicated or divested of episcopal or clerical dignity by Bishop Nestorius or those who follow him, it is clear that the person remained and remains in communion with Us from the moment [Nestorius and his followers] began to preach such [heresy], etc.”
(Louis Billot, S.J., Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, 3rd ed. [1909], Thesis XI, Q. 7; pp. 300-301)
xxxx
Ratzinger’s “resignation” and its validity (or lack thereof) isn’t even the issue here; it’s the fact that he has openly professed beliefs and practices that openly heretical.
In like manner, citing the 1983 Code of Canon Law does no favors either, seeing as how it was promulgated by one who also publicly professed heresy (namely, JP2), but also because it gives license for something which had been deemed a mortal sin for years by the Church (namely, communion for certain classes of non-Catholics without having to abjure their errors).
2V, I’m answering your earlier question here. The SSPX was founded in 1970. They kept the Faith after Rome had tossed it away, especially after Assisi ’86. Since then the two have basically stared at each other. The SSPX is filled with wonderful priests and Bishops. I’ve couldn’t be happier with them. I watch the Arizona live stream Mass. Again, the caliber of the priests are what I’m acquainted with in KC, top notch. If the SSPX ends up being the Church, and don’t see any other possibility, I think you’ll all be more than satisfied.
Rushintuit…i am confused. Above you wrote that the popes after Plus XII were anti but then you focus on SSPX as the answer. Are you sedevacantist or are you recognize and resist?
My personal take is that The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is matter of the Faith and not just a discipline, including the content. Perhaps a naive approach.
Pius V had to have a good reason to issue “Quo Primum”.
andy wrote:
“Pius V had to have a good reason to issue “Quo Primum””.
Pius V issued this particular bull within a specific historical context: the Latin/Western liturgical rites had been suffering from widespread and various abuses for decades- perhaps even centuries- even prior to the Protestant Revolutions. Keep in mind that there are, or at least were for centuries, a variety of Latin liturgical rites. There is one common element in each of them however: the Roman Canon.
This was coupled with the fact that nascent Protestant rites themselves were causing not a little confusion among the faithful as to what was a legitimate, traditional rite and what was not. This was particularly a problem in the German-speaking regions where Lutheranism had taken hold.
I’d argue that all this main impetus which led Pius V to revise the Roman Rite, lay down the law in other respects involving liturgy and who could and should utilize that Rite, and issue the 1570 “Quo Primum” Roman Missal.
Not an exhaustive treatment by any means on my part, but I hope that helps.
Uh, Andy, your “pope” engaged in a pagan ceremony with a pagan deity at its center. Exactly when will you use your God-given brain to reach the obvious conclusion?
And regarding those who defend the frauds like Siscoe, Salza and Ferrara, enough has come out that trad inc. is just a money-making opportunity for them. Buy my book! Bankroll my apostolate because the other guys aren’t Catholic! To all those who defend these charlatans, I hope you got your cut, because you never want to be the guy who does it for free!
Vermeullarmine – You are literally a laughingstock. The enemies of the Church don’t have to lift a finger to keep the Church down with fools like you in abundance. Just to illustrate how deluded you are, you fail to recognize that you are literally homeless. You are not in union with the institutional Church, because no good Catholic can be. You certainly aren’t in union with the World. All the “Catholic” entities that advertise themselves as “traditional” that you could call “home” can only suggest that they are in union with the Church, BECAUSE THE PRINCIPLE OF UNITY WHO COULD DEFINITIVELY ESTABLISH THEIR UNITY IS NOT PRESENT AT THIS TIME.
How has this come about? Because idiots and fools at all levels of the Church – including you and right down to grannies in the pews who are source of a lot of the money that keep the whole shebang running – don’t know their faith and don’t have the gumption to wave their fist and denounce the charlatans who currently pretend to be governing the Church.
Paultdale accepts as Catholic a man:
–
(1) who actively participated in a non-Catholic “religious” service from a time prior to his elevation as “Pope”;
–
(2) who sought to bind the Catholic Church in a concordat with the representative of a non-Catholic so-called “religion” to the belief that the Almighty wills the diversity of religions; and
–
(3) who actively participated as “Pope” in a pagan “religious” service with a graven image at its centerpiece, with the graven image blasphemously being passed off as a representation of Our Lady.
–
There is no need to argue with such a one as you, because to defend a one who engaged in items (1) – (3) above as remaining a good Catholic is the definition of insanity – not mine, but yours.
I wish that the writer known as In Caritas, had been a little more diplomatic in his comments. Not that, mind you, Truth is something which is subject to the niceties and “feelings” of others; rather, because theologically, he is correct.
I mean, specifically, that neither the Traditionalist groups (FSSP, SSPX, CMRI, SSPV) nor the Vatican II Establishment is Catholic. There is no Pope, and in the absence of a true Pope, the True Church does not become a free-for-all….ordain, consecrate, and establish “churches”, at whim; much less apostatize into a sect which looks more and more like low-church Episcopalianism.
Yet, it is easy to dismiss In Caritas because he attacks (attacked? I have not seen his posts lately) people individually, upsetting all of you — and me, too — which also has the effect of us all concentrating on the insults (naturally, because we’re human) rather than the substance of the hard Catholic Truths that he does, in fact, state.
The issues with the FSSP and the SSPX are of an entirely different category than those of CMRI/SGG/SSPV, in that the former (among many other things) are in communion with public heretics and likely have invalid orders (insofar as their ordinations were done by those consecrated under the “new” rite) whereas the issues facing the latter are tied to matters of licitness instead of validity.
Christ promised that He would be with His Church until the consummation of the world. As the Church has taught, that means she would remain substantially the same until the end of time; an extended period of “sede vacante”, although harrowing, does not represent a substantial change.
However, to assert that Apostolic Succession has definitively ended would in fact represent a substantial change, which we know is impossible by faith.
Many issues we currently face will either become resolved by the return of a true Pope, or by the End Times; nothing more or less than that.
(Besides, based on prior discussions with In Caritas in older threads, they’ve professed that they believe Angelo Roncalli was the Antichrist (and, if I’m not recalling correctly, they were certain that the Antichrist was already born at the turn of the 20th century, and has since passed on, and that we are currently in the End Times); part of their proof-set was a very skewed reading of Pius X’s E Supremi, obtaining an interpretation that the context does not warrant. So even theologically, their ideas were not 100% correct, and this is entirely separate from discussions of tone or rhetoric.)
…. to assert that Apostolic Succession has definitively ended would in fact represent a substantial change…”
I’d argue that there were many times during the early centuries of the church- and quite likely afterward- when the sort of succession you’re referring to- one bishop conferring orders onto another bishop and so on down the line- became murky, obscured, dicey or even ceased altogether.
Therefore I’d argue that authority in the church ultimately has to be based on personal faith and firm adherence to Apostolic Tradition. “Apostolic Succession”, while useful in a sense for the sake of keeping historical record (“on this date at this place, bishop so-and-so ordained/consecrated so-and-so”), it simply isn’t the metaphysical thing it’s been purported to be any more than the succession of the kohanim by kinship and blood was in Jewish Temple priesthood was.
Apostolicity does not exist apart from jurisdiction; that’s Catholic theology. As we both know, that’s one of the 4 Marks of the Church. In it, is the Authority that Christ gives…but by His choice ONLY through Peter.
CMRI is Old Catholic in its origin. All one has to do is read an online biography of the very, very strange man, the late Mr. Francis Schuckhardt.
Given that Shuckardt was thrown out by CMRI in the 80s, and given that the clergy subsequently sought bishops of the Thuc line for conditional ordination and to formally abjure their errors, Shuckardt’s ordination by an Old Catholic is irrelevant to the apostolate’s current state over 3 decades after the fact.
NQP,
Well, to see “Quo Primum” in full light, we would have to indeed to analyze and compare all rites, which from I have read they were not that different each from another, were they?
But let me reverse the question: are you saying that “Quo Primum” is not binding any more?
St Cyprian – you sound like a protestant.
I do not have a reason to not to believe that post V2 popes were validly ordained priests and bishops. Perhaps in a next generation, or one after it, once the current crop of neo-catholic clergy dies out, I might actually doubt if a new wave of priests is actually catholic due to so many defects related to intention, form and matter. Although, they are probably smart enough to stick to the essence of sacraments. The intention will be gone at some point though.
So in other words, as long as they do not fall into a formal heresy by e.g. proclaiming a new dogma which is in straight contradiction to pre V2 – and I think they are smart enough to not to so – we will be in that mess.
This is my sincere point of view and anything else would be against consciousness. God will judge me.
Hmmm Andy, given your ability to question St Cyprian’s catholicity below, I tend to believe that you are very capable of making such judgments.
No Schuckhardt, no CMRI. He founded the organization. It still bears the name he gave it.
Traditionalist bishops have no “authority” to receive an abjuration from anyone. The very idea is chimerical. They can go through the motions; actors do it all the time. It doesn’t make it.
They have no basis in Canon Law in which to stand; and even the Novus Ordo, devilish as they are, can rightly point that out.
“Apostolicity does not exist apart from jurisdiction; that’s Catholic theology. “
This is the point of so many posts that it makes my head spin. As I have said countless times, the sede groups maintain they have “supplied” jurisdiction to carry out ordinations. They cite historical examples of ordinations and installations during prolonged periods of sede vacante in the past. Home aloners doubt this claim of epikea. I am afraid that the issue cannot be resolved without a Pope. So while it is interesting discussing the hypotheticals surrounding this issue, being dogmatic about the subject (as several commentors were) is fruitless.
andy wrote: “But let me reverse the question: are you saying that “Quo Primum” is not binding any more?”
That’s a excellent question. I admit I do not know the answer to it because I’m not a scholar of canon law.
What I do know though is that I believe that the Novus Ordo should be avoided because it is both by itself and represents otherwise. a broader departure from Apostolic Tradition.
One need not be a legal scholar to recognize that. Heh.
Andy, no Pope can bind a future Pope. No one has powers over an equal.
Well, all I know is that throughout this “quarantine “, our local SSPX chapel has offered weekly public Masses. The priests had to drive long distances and back when they couldn’t get a flight. They were more concerned about bringing the sacraments to the faithful, than if they might catch the CoronaCold, or be stopped by vigilante police as they travelled.