As reported by Vatican News Service, Archbishop Buti Tlhagale, President of the Southern African Catholic Bishops’ Conference, addressed the reality of Nelson Mandela’s legacy:
“Fifteen years have passed since abortion on demand was legalized in South Africa. Since then, it is estimated that over one million unborn children were denied the most fundamental of rights, the right to life”, said a statement on behalf of the Southern African Catholic Bishops’ Conference (SACBC), signed by Archbishop Buti Tlhagale, Archbishop of Johannesburg and President of the SACBC. “We remember those one million unborn babies. We regret that those children of God were denied the right to be born into God’s world and to enrich it with their own unique gifts and talents. We will never fully realize what we have missed because the law says that ‘abortion is fine’,” said the statement sent to Fides.
Is it possible for churchmen to reconcile the reality of having denied over one million unborn children the right to life with “promoting human dignity … non-violence, reconciliation and truth … justice and the common good” without exposing the souls in their care to confusion at the very least, eternal damnation at worst?
For those who have the Catholic faith, we know that it is not. This much is entirely obvious.
Consider: If the Holy Father and the world’s bishops had simply limited their comments to offering prayers for the repose of Mandela’s soul even without confronting his complicity with evil, and the likes of Nancy Peolsi and Joe Biden had said exactly the same things Pope Francis and Archbishop Kurtz said, the “conservative” Catholic army would have lambasted them. I know it, and they know it.
And yet, where are those same Catholic voices that went out of their way to criticize me, both publicly and privately, for the way that I attempt to defend, albeit imperfectly, the Holy Catholic faith?
Karl Keating, where is your Catholic Answer?
Well said Louie
Louie, I’m not sure how Karl Keating fits into your screed here. Has Catholic Answers never criticized pro-abortion Catholic politicians? Has it defended Mandela’s policies? Surely any Catholic would pray for the repose of the soul of anyone, as it is a spiritual work of mercy. But did Karl pray specifically for Mandela? I’m lost here.
You miss the point. Keating is silent because the ones sounding like Biden/Pelosi are Francis and his bishops.
I guess I missed that, too, Louie. 🙁 Could some bishops be stronger in their pro-life witness? Sure. But Pelosi, at least, has been barred from receiving the Eucharist. I am not privy to the dealings of every bishop with “pro-choice” “Catholic” politicians, but I know from my years at Catholic Answers that Karl and the ministry are irrevocably pro-life and orthodox. Just what do you expect them to do when Catholics disobey, beyond speaking the truth?
I would take Louie and other “R&R” (recognize but resist) traditionalists more seriously re: Keating’s supposed silence if they were not similarly silent with regards to Fr. Cekada’s booklet “Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope.” Almost twenty years later this booklet remains unrefuted by “R&R” traditionalists like Louie, despite so many young and high profile sedes raised in “R&R” traditionalist citing Cekada’s work as the catalyst for them seeing through the various fallacies of “R&R” traditionalism.
The booklet is readily available online. Fr. Cekada has uploaded it to his webpage as well as given many other sedevacantist groups permission to reproduce it on their websites.
Louie Verrecchio, where is your “R&R” traditionalist answer? Are you man enough to answer this Goliath challenged that has downed so many of your “R&R” traditionalist predecessors?
Well, I can say what I have ceased to expect CA to do, for years now..
And that is, let’s say with regards this case, to state what is known about the individual’s actual stance on and cooperation in, matters relating to that which is intrinsically evil. Not to do so by means of even simple omission is a scandal, because it misleads the youth to say the least.
We need courageous Catholics in media.
No one is making any statements about the state of another’s soul. Period. That would not be Catholic.
Here’s a link to the Fr. Cekada piece I referenced in my last comment: http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/TradsInfall.pdf
We will see if Louie answers the challenge posed to “R&R” traditionalism by sedevacantism, or if he simply deletes the link and my comments. The irony being that those R&R traditionalists who accuse Keating of politically opportune silence are usually the first to hit the delete button when their own “hot potatoes” come to the fore. I was amazed at how quickly Fr. Paul Kramer – at one time a pillar of “R&R” traditionalism – vanished from the internet last week.
We will see if Louie actually has the courage to follow through with what he denounces Keating for not doing, or whether these comments also vanish from Louie’s blog.
OK sports fans. Everyone back in their seats.
Louie, great article.
Torquemada: Fr. Cekada’s body of work is classic and he will be remembered in the annals of Catholic apologetic as one of the truly great figures of the Restoration. However, the war is being fought on many fronts. And whatever the effort, no matter how great or small should be applauded. Provided that it is a sincere effort and helps restore the Bride of Christ. As far as the details of popes who teach heresy and the heresy itself, let’s leave that to the future Council of Econe. But before that can happen, we need to capture the See of St. Peter. And the only way we are going to accomplish this is by everyone doing this bit and keeping their focus. Remember sports fans, it’s just a matter of time. The ’60 hippie church is dieing and with it will die the corrupt and evil infrastructure. All we need to do is keep the Faith and wait. Oh, and have lots of children.
Do I hear an Amen?
St. Michael Archangle, ora pro nobis.
Louie, why do you tolerate Sedevacantist commentaries on your website?
Please stop pretending that sedevacantism as an issue deserves anywhere near as much attention as poor Church leadership. The problem in the Church is the failed leadership, not the very small number of sedevacantists.
Ok, how can South Africa be against violence and yet slaughter one million babies in the womb? Next, when did the Cardinals of this country finally find their spine and deny Pelosi communion? As of this date, she is still committing scandal and sacrilege. Lord have mercy on Pope Francis and Bishop Kurtz…to praise a man who fights the evils of poverty and racism by supporting baby killing and sodomy is insane. Scripture tells us to beware of men who hold gifts in one hand and iniquities in the other. May the Lord have mercy on Nelson Mandela’s soul…all those years in prison only to possibly find himself in an eternal one. What a sad story. God bless you Louie!
P-u-l-e-a-z-e Nathan, who’s pretending?
“R&R” neo-trads like to pretend that sedevacantism is just a tiny insignificant minority to be swept under the rug. But is that not how the Novus Ordo views traditionalism in general? In fact, is that not the nature of Louie’s accusation against Karl?
And yet Stephen Heiner, Mario Derksen, Michael & Cindy Cain, Gerry Matatics, Tom Drolesky, and just last week Fr. Kramer – how many other once high-profile R&R traditionalists in recent years have recognized the intrinsic instability of the R&R traditionalism and embraced sedevacantism? Why are sedevacantist orders and chapels growing with young people who were raised in R&R traditionalism?
Again, if Fr. Cekada’s errors are so obvious, why in close to 20 years of being out there have the R&R traditionalists like Louie ever offered a rebuttal of this short little booklet?
S.Armaticus, I can empathize with where you are coming from, but I think we need to look at this logically rather than emotionally:
1 – If the issue is simply we are all fighting different battles, and one should speak or be silent depending upon which battle one is fighting, who is to say that Karl Keating and Catholic Answers are wrong? Maybe they are simply fighting another battle, as you claim Louie is doing.
2 – If Francis is a valid pope, then why the need to capture the See of St. Peter? Does it not already have an occupant?
3 – Yes, the hippie Church is dying. But so too, apparently, is R&R traditionalism which finds itself divided between Fellayites who cannot make up their mind whether or not Francis is Pope, and the Williamson resisters who act as though Bergoglio were a cardboard pope – “for display purposes only”.
Louis is fighting the battle presented to him when Catholic Answers disparaged traditionalists. Louis is fighting with Catholics that are within the church.
Perhaps God will one say call Louis to do missionary work among schismatics, but that would be fruitless if we don’t first restore the Church from within. That is the apostolate The Lord has called Louis to, and Louis is a Toman Catholic, not an “R and R traditionalist.”
Your use of the comments to try to shame someone into doing something and bringing up sedevacantism as though it is related to the work here are not helpful and make me question your motives.
Forgive the typos, I am not savvy with an iPhone.
What is an R & R trad?
Okay, maybe I’m stupid, just growing up knowing only the ancient Rite from 1940’s & on, etc.–never went to an nerrvous mass, but , I ask again—what is an R & R trad,—-?
Dear Catholic Mom–your lack of savvy–is that a sin? I’m a convert–what do I know?
What you said was said well–despite any typos.
But I’m still worried if I am an “R & R trad or not. Is that a good thing?
R&R = Recognize but Resist. For an excellent explanation of the self-contradictions and futility of this position, see the following article:
“Why are sedevacantist orders and chapels growing with young people who were raised in R&R traditionalism?”
They probably got sick of attending Novus Ordo masses where the Priest in his homily says that “the apostles put their words into the mouth of Jesus when talking about wrath cause you know, the ancient mind worked that way”. or when he said ” if we could of had a king like the Israelites had King David it probably would have been JFK”. I guess he was caught up in the recent anniversary. Or it could have been instead of a homily they brought in someone to talk about the new healthcare and how to sign up and on another weekend, again instead of a homily, another speaker about an opinion poll that was taken in regards to the Church and the results were in! This is just the tip of the Iceberg, just one parish among many of which I could tell you something equally bizarre. The problem is not Traditionalist it is the heresy of modernism which is in every nook and cranny of the Church.
I have read Fr. Cekada’s booklet “Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope.” as suggested by T. Tequila and I find it irrefutable.
Wow! I had not realized it had become that bad among R&R traditionalism. I know the local indult chapel has made its peace with the Novus Ordo, as one would expect from Catholic traditionalists who recognize Bergoglio as Pope. But they would never go so far as to embrace modernism as you are claiming among R&R traditionalism.
So yeah, this sheds additional light on why young people raised in R&R traditionalism are embracing sedevacantism openly. Mainly because it points to the intrinsic instability of R&R traditionalism as pointed out by Fr. Cekada in each of the pieces to which I linked. As Our Lord says in the Gospel, “A man cannot serve two Masters.”
R&R traditionalists like Louie, in trying to serve two masters, end up serving the wrong one by default.
So again Louie, where is your traditional Catholic answer?
I’m glad linda asked what an R&R is ’cause I’ve never heard it before either. I have followed Fr Kramer online and he seems like ‘lukewarm’ or ‘cold’ is not and could never be part of his Christian vocabulary. One could say the same for Louie.
Question: where, for a sedavancantist, is the visible, One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic? I agree it’s hardly visible at the trad-loathing end of the NO continuum. And how does a sedavancantist interpret Christ’s promise of the undefeatable Church?
p.s. ‘scuse the misspelling of sedevacantist.
p.s.s. louie, I bought “And with Your Spirit – Recovering a sense of the sacred in the Roman Missal” off your site on October 2nd – it hasn’t shown up and I get no ‘customer service’ replies to my ‘where’s my book?’ queries. Just asking.
Also John Salza – I bought a book off your site back in september – have emailed yourself and gonzales umpteem times with no reply and no book?!? If anyone knows J Salza, again, where’s my book? It’s not a good look.
I agree with you that Fr. Kramer could never be accused of lukewarmness. Not as sure about Louie. This past week Louie has called upon the Novus Ordo Bishops to revoke their man-card; perhaps in the process Louie will man up and face the logical conclusions of the R&R position he is now espousing.
But to answer your question from Fr. Kramer’s perspective as expressed earlier this week on Facebook, he obviously does not believe the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church resides with Francis. Which is the logical conclusion of his theological assumptions shared with R&R traditionalists. (Which is also why Fr. Kramer’s work is now rapidly vanishing from key R&R websites).
But to turn the question around, where do Louie and other R&R traditionalists believe the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is to be found? They will maintain the Novus Ordo Church when debating the sedevacantist bogeymen, or denying R&R traditionalists are sedevacantist, but otherwise Novus Ordo Bishops and Pope are treated as mere card-board cutouts – for display purposes only! Hence the SSPX’s two-Church model in which the Pope is head of both Vatican II Modernist Novus Ordo Church and the Roman Catholic Church of Tradition.
No wonder R&R traditionalists are so confused. To help dispel this confusion, let us go back to the last Pope before Vatican II. Let us go back to Pope Pius XII’s teaching on ecclesiology. In Mystici Corporis, His Holiness condemned the proposition that Christ and Pope are two different heads of the same Church, as this would render the Church “two-headed like a monster.” What R&R traditionalists propose is a two-bodied monster that share the same head.
Hence the appropriateness of Fr. Cekada’s comment referring to the R&R position as that of creating a Frankenchurch. (A pun that becomes even funnier now that R&R traditionalists proclaim Frances as the cardboard head of both Churches). It is well worth the read, assuming your man-card is up to date:
God moves in mysterious ways. There may be snake trails all over the vatican, all over Church history, but that’s because satan doesn’t really care about mecca or post-temple judaism, or westminster abbey, or a million and one theist or anti-theist hot air balloons that were of his own making. Even if the papal lynch-pin is bent, without it the Church just becomes another protestantism. Yes, the NO is pretty much poison to proper faith, but if that’s what you’re stuck with, you have to pray and work hard to keep that faith, and know that at every Holy Communion, God is keeping up His end of the deal, even if everyone else in His ’employ’ has gone rogue. The hirelings might fleece the sheep, but the True Shepherd never will. This ‘Pope’ might be a poisonous pope, but we have been given the grace to tread on the asp and the basilisk unharmed. Saints of old, I think it was Catherine of Siena said the road to hell is paved with the skulls of popes and priests. The more God gives one, the more God expects of one. If Pope Francis thinks God was kidding…No one has power unless God permits it. For some reason, God has permitted this neo-marxist to spread confusion and division. What it does do is sharpen our own spirits, wakes us up, we put on the armour of Faith and know that God is the Rock, no matter how perplexing the ‘peters’ who come an go. At any rate, the hippy church and the NO are fading like trends always do. We have SSPX as a visible example of what Church should be – and the work of the Holy Ghost throughout the ages cannot be erased by a couple of generations of false fathers. Francis might prefer to leave the seat empty, but that’s not God’s plan. Those who have ears, let them hear. There will always be liars, false ‘friends’. If Francis is a false ‘friend’, we simply refuse to treat him as a friend and ask God to protect us. Sounds easy, but conversion is a daily battle.
Interesting argument. If we strip your argument of emotional rhetoric, however, what are we left with? Basically I see you presenting two premises:
1 – Pope Francis is a neo-Marxist.
2 – The SSPX is the visible Church presently.
Contra #2: Nowhere have I read in any papal act – either before, during or after Vatican II – in which the Pope transferred the See of Peter from Rome to Econe.
Regarding #1: Marxism and its variants are a particularly pernicious form of apostasy (even more serious than heresy) condemned by Pope Pius IX in his Syllabus of Errors.
So what is the penalty for heresy and apostasy as determined by traditional papal teaching rather than mere R&R emotional outburst?
Again, Fr. Cekada mans up and answers. In doing so, he providates actual citations from papal teaching, pre-conciliar theologians and canonized saints. Something that I noticed his R&R opponents rarely emulate, their responses being heavy on emotion and light on traditional Catholic theology.
For example, read the quote from Pope Paul IV (not to be confused with Pope Paul VI several centuries later) has to say about a heretical pope holding office in his papal bull Cum Ex Apostolatus. It just happens that Fr. Cekada has quoted Paul IV’s teaching on this subject in “Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope,” Again, here is the link:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/TradsInfall.pdfIn short, your response provides an excellent example
p.s. You might say the Faithful are having a Job moment. Meanwhile Job’s ‘friends’ in high places strut around putting words in God’s mouth, name-calling, condemning. But they are liars. Job might be feeling on the low end of Faith but he holds on, and it is that steadfastness, of which St Paul speaks, that wins the race of salvation.
I think we are losing sight of the original observation of this post– that it is a shame and to some extent a scandal that bishops of the Catholic Church would praise a man who supported the killing of innocent unborn children as a “brave witness and for all men and women who work against injustice and seek, in the words of Pope John XXIII, ‘to make the human sojourn on earth less sad.'” To point out this contradiction within the hearts and minds of our leaders does not imply any denial of their office, but is a reasonable questioning of their faithful or consistent execution of their duties, which includes their duty to defend God’s law against the killing of the innocent. Such questioning does not necessarily lead to a denial of their office.
I would agree. After all, sedevacantism has been such a dirty word for so long among R&R traditionalists. Job was pretty destitute during his trial by Satan. And as we both know, there is little money to be made among sedevacantism as there is doing the R&R circuit.
But it is like Our Lord said in the Gospels: “A man cannot serve both God and money.” I guess we know which one R&R traditionalists have chosen.
You said earlier in this thread that you had been following Fr. Kramer and he is neither cold nor lukewarm. Well here his words as appeared under his name earlier this week on his Facebook page:
Pope” Francis in Evangelii Gaudium n. 247: “We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked”.
This text is an explicit profession of heresy, directly opposed to the solemn dogmatic definition of Pope Eugenius III and the Ecumenical Council of Florence, and the doctrine taught by the supreme magisterium of Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo Primum, set forth repeatedly and explicitly citing the definition of Florence, to wit, that the Mosaic covenant has been “revoked” and “abrogated”.
I have been saying for years that when a “pope” will officially teach explicit and clear heresy flatly contradicting the infallibly defined dogma of the Catholic faith, then you will know that he is the false pope prophecied in many Church approved prophecies and Marian apparitions. St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alohonsus Liguori, St. Antoninus and Pope Innocent III all teach that when the pope demonstrates himself to be a manifest heretic, i.e. a plainly manifested public heretic, he ceases to be pope (or, if already was a public heretic he was invalidly elected) because he is not a Catholic — not a member of the Catholic Church.
Bellarmine explains that the Roman Pontiff is the visible head of the Church, and the head is a member. One who is not a member cannot be the head, and therefore the election to the supreme pontificate of a public heretic is canonically null & void.
The heresy of Bergoglio in no. 247 is such a clear cut case of manifest, public heresy, expressed in stark, unequivocal terms, that it can be said without doubt that if this proposition of no. 247 is not manifestly heretical, then nothing else can be said to be so. It is morally impossible that one who manifestly displays such clearly expressed contempt for a defined dogma of faith by plainly denying it, can be believed to validly hold the office of Roman Pontiff.
St. Francis of Assisi foretold of the uncanonically elected pope who would not be “a true pastor but a destroyer”. Bergoglio plainly fits the description.
How apt that the real Francis 1st (of Assisi) made such prediction. Meanwhile, I have strayed off topic. Just why is it that so many people with a Catholic public profile are either batting for the other team (the world I mean), or praising those who are batting for the other team?
Clear talk, clear thinking, clear Faith: does anyone have a list of high profile Catholics who proclaim and advocate this………………..?…………………………..?…………………………?…………………………?………………….? Pope Pius X – I know he’s not of the flesh anymore, but you have to start somewhere.
Sedevacantism is a dead end. Vatican 1 discounts it anyway. Even if the Pope is a heretic, until the cardinals/bishops declare that, there’s nothing can be done.
As for Catholic Answers. I am a convert who grew into the faith with them. They did give me a lot of answers at first. I am grateful for that. But, they don’t want to face the hard questions. One minute they put Robert Spencer on their radio show, espousing the evils of Islam and the Koran but once Bishop of Rome Francis says Islam is peace and the Koran teaches non violence, not a peep. If anything can be said about Catholic Answers, they are afraid and hypocritical at this point.
I wonder why Sister Lucia of Fatima wasn`t a sedevacanist???How about Padre Pio???Having asked these questions, I will say that I have a great deal of love and respect for sedevacanists but I look to those Our Lady and Our Lord spoke to and I`ll follow their example. I pray that all of these divisions will heal because we all believe the Holy Roman Catholic Faith is the one true Faith outside of which there is no salvation.
Good question, Theresa. According to most R&R traditionalists when engaged in their practice of pope-sifting, Sr. Lucy and Padre Pio were basically prisoners of the Novus Ordo church.
Which raises an interesting question: Why did Sr. Lucy live and finish her life in a Novus Ordo convent, subject to the Novus Ordo hierarchy, rather than join a R&R convent subject to Bishop Fellay? Why did Padre Pio not join Archbishop Lefebvre when given the opportunity?
If R&R traditionalists cite Sr Lucy and Padre Pio as an example, should they not first set the example by following those two examples?
Becca: One may claim that sedevacantism is dead end as an emotional reaction, rather than face that one arrives there by following R&R theological presumptions to their logical conclusion. That is, sedevacantism is the logical conclusion of believing the Pope is a cardboard cutout only. Which is why many R&R traditionalists of my generation, having set aside emotional knee-jerk reaction and looked at the issue logically, have opted to either recognize sedevacantism or return to the indult. Either Francis is Pope or he is not.
To engage in the pope-sifting as R&R traditionalists like Louie is doing is quite absurd. Yes, the Pope is head of a two-bodied monster known as the Traditional Roman Catholic Church and the Vatican II Novus Ordo Modernist Church. Who gets to decide when the pope is head of which? Not the Church but some Italian-American blogger and former EWTN personality from Baltimore. Who needs the throne of St. Peter when we’ve got Mancard Louie giving his thumb’s up or thumb’s down from an easy chair in Baltimore?
Torguemada: The REAL issue from where I sit (and from where you and everyone else sits for that matter) is how to convert the N.O. Church back to the one true Faith, that Faith which is necessary for our very salvation. There is NO salvation without the Faith. All else is secondary. Next, there is no salvation outside the Church. Christ’s words, not mine. That is also a statement of an objective fact. Which brings us to the issue with respect to the occupant of the See of St. Peter. When a wretched sinner becomes the pope, he is not magically transformed into a perfect specimen of either Christian virtue or dogmatic perfection. What you need to keep in mind is that Christ left his Bride in the hands of us unworthy, wretched sinners starting from Peter and ending with Francis. And only God knows how much I loath to make that last statement publicly. Therefore, the question (of secondary importance), of whether Francis is a valid pope or not is not for us to decide. John XXIII election, could have been the product of a communist plot for example, or one more akin to those of the Borgia’s in their day. And all the subsequent popes, who are carrying forward this demolition of the Church, whether intentionally (Paul VI? – he knew), unwittingly (Benedict?), or just because they weren’t too bright (JPII and Francis) were enthroned by the same mechanism that elected all popes up and including Pius XII. The Faithful see the fruits of this harvest of the new springtime, but are limited in what they can do. The Cardinals on the other hand, CAN, but obviously they don’t want to make that hard decision. Therefore, the statement “Francis is the pope” is not only an objective statement of the facts, but it is a brutal reality. As for the sedevacantists, their arguments are very solid in terms of Catholic dogma and deductive reasoning. Where they err however, in my humble opinion, is that they don’t want to admit that the pope is human, i.e. can teach heresy (an objective fact) or can even fall into apostasy, which is probably the case with Bergoglio. In other words, Bergoglio could be a crank, but he is still the pope. Don’t get me wrong, there is nothing I would like to see more than Bergoglio converting to the one true Catholic Faith, admitting the error of his ways and asking Bishop Dolan to consecrate him as a true bishop in the Catholic Church using the proper Roman rite. But the likelihood of that happening is very remote. So for the time being, we just need to face reality and fight the modernist heresy wherever and whenever we can. No excuse for taking your ball and bats and leaving the sandbox “me ole mukker”, as the English would say. The stakes are too high. The existence of the Church is at stake and yours and everyone else’s eternal salvation is riding on it.
Think about it for a minute.
And pray that the Council of Econe comes sooner than later.
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc et in hora mortis nostrae.
Thank you, Louie, I appreciate your courage and knowledge. I am also learning, so much from all the comments….researching your names alone…Torquemada, Armaticus! I just wanted to comment on something Saluto wrote and ask for clarification ” knowing that at every Holy Communion, God is keeping up his end of the deal.” I recently read something on Father John Hardon’s website in answer to a question about a priest’s denial of transubstantiation, “A priest who denies his own priestly powers of transubstantiation is not likely to offer a valid Mass even though he goes through the ritual and words of the Eucharistic liturgy. At the very least, there is reason to doubt whether the Eucharistic ceremony which he celebrates is really the sacrifice of the Mass.” I have no idea how prevalent this is, but it’s very concerning to me. We recently started driving 60 miles to attend a TLM….sublime is all I can say. Thank you for any comments.
OK, Torquemada Tequila, You’ve made your point (or at least made an attempt, since half of what you write is incoherent). You’ve posted at this very short article now 12 times. 12 times! It’s beginning to look like obsession. Get some therapy and get a life.
Torq: When I first read your comment(s), I thought you were criticizing Louie from the other side, i.e., for not expressly condemning and refuting the untenable position of sedevacantism, as though that were as serious an issue as the things going on inside the Church. I misunderstood.
For what it’s worth, I think sedevacantism is an error, but on the other hand, I can sympathize to some extent with its adherents. After all, if you really think about it, it’s difficult to maintain that anyone other than those in Church leadership are responsible for making such a position even remotely attractive.
Nathan: The Sede error is that they expect perfection in an imperfect world. But their arguments are sound and logic is impeccable. I enjoy reading the material since it adds to the constructive criticism of the post conciliar church and focuses on the modernist errors. If they would just focus on the modernist errors instead of berating the “adjacent line unit for not having polished brass”, they do us all a world of good.
Not sure which arguments you’re referring to. Their error is very specific: they think the pope is not the pope. My point was that it’s very likely that the post-conciliar Church leaders are the ones that will be held responsible for such an error, in that they caused so many to doubt.
I was told by an excellent Traditional priest that sedevacantism is only a theory and another form of protestantism. They cannot digest that a pope can say and do heretical things. In the end It is an emotional stance – despite their knowledge and ability to quote chapter and verse of church documents and the writings of saints to defend their position. They remind me of Jehovah witnesses – and real discussion is quite impossible – for they always end up saying that – “for me ‘he’ is not the pope.” What is this? There is no end to the rabbit hole that Sedevacantists want to take you down. Problem is – they often have very good points…. that can be a dangerously tempting – in other words – you can agree with the. Sedevacantists worry me more than the present disastrous leadership in the Church ….no, no it’s a no-man’s land…not very Catholic either – as often their comments against the papacy are dripping in mockery and vitriol…I have this notion that they don’t really love the Church – but that’s just me. …
Nathan wrote: “My point was that it’s very likely that the post-conciliar Church leaders are the ones that will be held responsible for such an error, in that they caused so many to doubt.”
You are quite correct. But looking at the lay of the land, I don’t think many of them really care.
Perhaps the lines of reasoning developed by those concerned with sedavacantism would be/ will be/ are going to be needed in periods of time addressed by many prophecies of the saints in the past? Perhaps when the time comes, the arguments and factors need to be easily understood. Perhaps it would then be too late to formulate these arguments.
We do know that it could be possible, though it has never been declared in a matter that the universal church accepts.
I do not believe we have been in this situation in the past, but I cannot help but see that that time may have come or may come soon given what we have seen happening.
Then again, I am not a theologian or a saint. So I pray God to help us through Mary Immaculate.
Mercy of the modernists torward the Faithful has no bounds. The Franciscans learn the true meaning of the gospel of luv and joy.
Apology accepted. No worries at this end.
One question I do have, however, is the following: Why is sedevacantism untenable?
I get the emotional rhetoric that most R&R traditionalists appeal to. What I am looking for though are arguments based upon logic and traditional Catholic theology.
I wasn’t really apologizing, just saying I misunderstood. I thought you were pulling a Catholic Answers in telling Louie that he should spend less time criticizing the modernists and more time criticizing “radical traditionalism”.
The bottom line of why I reject sedevacantism (though not the only reason) is that, given the typical sede stance that John XXIII or Paul VI lost the papacy, the sedes have precluded ever electing a new pope. On their view, only an act of direct divine intervention could reinstate the next pope. Of course, they propose other ways, but I’ve never been convinced by any ot them.
More generally, though, after a 50-year sede vacante (that virtually no one recognizes anyway), it would seem that the gates of Hell have prevailed.
“Wow! I had not realized it had become that bad among R&R traditionalism. I know the local indult chapel has made its peace with the Novus Ordo, as one would expect from Catholic traditionalists who recognize Bergoglio as Pope. But they would never go so far as to embrace modernism as you are claiming among R&R traditionalism.”
I was not talking about a “Traditionalist” Church. People who actually believe what the Church teaches (“Traditionalists”) cannot find the proper teaching in the Church and are being pushed to find it elsewhere. The idea that there is “Traditional Parish’s” seems bizarre to me because I can’t find one in my area no matter how many Parish’s I try out. Another story: It was the 24th Sunday in Ordinary Time and the Priest went through the whole Mass as if it was the 21st Sunday in Ordinary time and he read his homily from a piece of paper from the readings of the 21st. It was really unbelievable. At another Parish the Priest brought in a Kabbalah Rabbi to teach everyone about Kabbalah. Just what we all needed! The moronic heresy of Modernism is everywhere in the Church and no Parish is safe and I wish there was a “Traditionalist” Parish but from my experience I haven’t been able to find one.
Yes, call me a “right winger” code word for “crazy racist” call me a “Traditionalist” code word for “crazy sedevacantist” it’s all the same game.
That’s my point: sedevacantists are for the most part not crazy. In fact they share a similar theological starting point as most R&R traditionalists. Sedevacantists has simply taken a good look at what Church theologians and popes have taught throughout the centuries and drawn logical conclusions.
As for accusations of racism, here again you can blame R&R traditionalists. It was they–specifically Bishop Williamson–who for some unknown and incomprehensible reason publicly linked the traditionalist movement to anti-semitism and Holocaust denial. As you can read from the following article, Bishop Sandborn was quite outspoken in his public criticism of Bishop Williamson and other R&R traditionalists engaging publicly in Holocaust denial.
Bishop Sandborn quite rightly points out that a Catholic Bishop – especially one claiming to be traditional – has no business promoting sympathy for the Nazi regime: http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/LogicalChickens2.pdf
I have heard all the R&R traditionalist reasons and excuses for denying the Holocaust. I am neither convinced nor impressed by these arguments. Rather I am embarrassed that my 25 years experience promoting Catholic Tradition is being undermined by their bigoted and historically-challenged stupidity.
I think you have identified clearly why so many younger traditionalists raised R&R have in recent years found their way over sedevacantism.
While the R&R’s obsesses over women in slacks, the Sound of Music, alleged international Jewish conspiracies and trying to substantially downplay the number of Jewish deaths during the Holocaust, sedevacantists are actually wrestling over questions and issues raised since Vatican II and develop lines of reasoning faithful to Catholic Tradition.
Taigi’s question: on Father John Hardon’s website in answer to a question about a priest’s denial of transubstantiation, “A priest who denies his own priestly powers of transubstantiation is not likely to offer a valid Mass even though he goes through the ritual and words of the Eucharistic liturgy.
It’s my understanding that no matter the state of the priest, if his ordination is valid the Mass he offers is always valid, because he acts in the person of Christ, and while a fallen man may have not faith in what he is doing, because of the special Grace bestowed on him at ordination, Christ will and does act through him, and Christ, the High Priest, is always valid.
When I was a child the Church everywhere had the same faith, the same sacraments and the same Sacrifice of the Mass. Throughout the breadth of Christendom we prayed to God in the same way. The new liberal and modernist religion has sown division. Christians (Catholics) are divided (we have become split-pea soup) within the same family because of this confusion WHICH HAS ESTABLISHED ITSELF; THEY NO LONGER GO TO THE SAME MASS AND THEY NO LONGER READ THE SAME BOOKS.
How many times I have heard on EWTN radio, how callers are complaining that their bishop or priest is forbidding them, to receive Holy Communion on their knees……..IMAGINE, THEY NO LONGER FEAR GOD!……..FORBIDDEN TO BEND THE KNEE BEFORE GOD!……..MISERERE!!!
Dear ‘Torquemada Tequila’………We therefore choose to keep our faith, holy Tradition, working our salvation in fear and trembling……..defending what the Church has taught for two thousand years……NOBODY not even the Pope, nor the modernist bishop, nor the priest can make us to become Protestants or modernists……who are masquerading as Catholic reformers, who have introduced novelties that demean the Eucharist, show contempt for tradition and for what our fathers and mothers, our holy priests and nuns have taught us.
As far as the converts at Catholic Answers……….these men are ‘professional Catholics’, who in one way are pretending to be ‘orthodox’, and yet, be so liberal when it comes to the Sovereign Kingship of Jesus Christ, religious freedom, holy Tradition, collegiality and ecumenism…….this is because, they have come to the post-Vatican II Protestant Catholic Church of ‘nice’, while still clinging to their Protestant roots. For these guys is no problem to oppose traditionalism……as if the holy Church was not Traditional for two thousand years………Only a fool, rejects holy Tradition!
The Fifth Century St. Vincent of Lerins, who has experienced the shock of heresies, gives a rule of conduct which still holds good after fifteen hundred years: “WHAT should the Catholic Christian therefore do if some part of the Church arrives at the point of detaching itself from the universal communion and the universal faith? What else can he do but prefer the general body which is healthy to the GANGRENOUS AND CORRUPTED LIMB? And if some new contagion strives to poison, not just a small part of the Church but the whole Church at once, then again his great concern will be to attach himself to Antiquity which obviously cannot any more be seduced by any deceptive novelty.”
The great Soldier of Christ Archbp. Lefebvre said: “It is because we judge that our faith is endangered by the post-conciliar reforms and tendencies, that we have the duty to disobey and keep the Tradition. Let us add this, that the greatest service we can render to the Church and to the successor of Peter is to reject the reformed and liberal Church. Jesus Christ, Son of God made man, is neither liberal nor reformable.”
Dear Louie…..Keep fighting the good fight as a true soldier of Christ! The Catholic Church is a tradition…….We are a tradition……Who can be a Catholic without being a traditionalist? Let us not be taken in by the term ‘traditionalist’ which they persist to have ignorant people understand in a bad sense…….Miserere! It is therefore the right road we are are following, in spite of persecution by the liberals and modernists……..Our Father Who Art in Heaven…….!!!
Viva Cristo Rey!
Archbishop Lefebvre, for all his strengths, was also blind in certain areas. One weakness was not recognizing the inherent instability and self-contradictions of his “R&R” brand of traditionalism. Another blindness was consecrating this person a bishop:
Archbishop Lefebvre, for all his strengths, was also blind in certain areas. One weakness was not recognizing the inherent instability and self-contradictions of his “R&R” brand of traditionalism. Another blindness was consecrating this person a bishop:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ3ObrgaWnc
p.s. thanks for sorting my Bermuda triangle book problem, Louie. In all honesty I may also have been using the wrong email for enquiry. Mea Culpa.
S. Amartico wrote: “In other words, Bergoglio could be a crank, but he is still the pope. Don’t get me wrong, there is nothing I would like to see more than Bergoglio converting to the one true Catholic Faith, admitting the error of his ways and asking Bishop Dolan to consecrate him as a true bishop in the Catholic Church using the proper Roman rite.”
And herein lay the various self-contradictions and instabilities of “Recognize but Resist” traditionalism that causes R&R to chase after alleged international Jewish conspiracies and secret prophecies. FIRST OFF, if Bergoglio requires conversion to the true Catholic Faith, then obviously he cannot be a member of it right now. And in that case, he cannot be the visible head of it. SECOND, a bishop is either validly consecrated or he is not. Once the episcopal order is received validly, to attempt to receive it again is a sacrilege. If Bergolo requires Bishop Dolan to consecrate him Bishop of Rome, then Bergolo obviously is neither a bishop nor Bishop of Rome currently.
So all you R&R traditionalists out there, time to man up! Is Bergolo a validly-consecrated bishop given that his episcopal consecration was received in the Novus Ordo?
Tequila……. you are trying to make your point too hard. Calm down…..you are blowing your horns in the wrong direction. Put your energy into fighting the ‘arrogant’ harassment against our Catholic Rights. Do not hunt those who want to be serving God as true Catholics ought to……who desire to save souls. Search your heart…….our division is a great weapon against ‘truth’, for our enemy………Such fools, Catholics are!!!
The Holocaust has become a religion in this country. The Jews are NOT the only race that has ever suffered on the face of this earth. For centuries Catholic Christians have been killed, persecuted…….by the enemy of Jesus Christ. Do we argue with the world, with the enemy of the holy faith…….. about the exact count of the unjustly killed? For years faithful Catholics have been scandalized by the false charity, false ecumenism from the post-Vatican II establishment, towards the heretics, the Jews, the Muhammad’s……as if they have the moral freedom to live their lives as if Jesus Christ were a fraud and imposter. While at the same time, the same establishment failed to condemn the evil of Communism……..the loss of many, many millions of innocent men. I was born in Poland, I lived with the Jews in Poland till I was 16 years old……till I came to this Protestant country. Many Jews and so-called Catholics in this country, would like you to believe, that all Jews were killed doing the evil Nazi reign. In Communist Poland the Polish people could not own a business……..but, the Jews owned bakeries, Jewelry shops, leather goods boutique, textiles….to name just few. They worked in the bank, in the Communist government, on the radio, TV, as professors at the Universities, doctors, dentists, lawyers, accountants……….simply put it, they were everywhere. Many have not left, and are doing their best as we speak to destroy Catholicism in Poland…….to say the least.
” The fundamental source of disorder and conflict in the world was (is) the rejection of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the TRUE MESSIAS, by His own nation. For the Jews, ‘anti-Semitism’ is anything that is in opposition to the naturalistic Messianic domination of their nation over all the others. Logically, the leaders of the Jewish nation hold that to stand for the Rights of Christ the King is to be ‘anti- Semitic.”…….Fr. Denis Fahey.
May Our Lord soon send us a Pontiff who will once again be faithful to His Truth…….a Pope who will fear God, who will desire God’s Will, who will desire to save souls!….Lord give us a holy Pope, holy Cardinals, holy Bishops, holy priests…….many holy vocations!
Viva Cristo Rey!
T-T: Dude (or Dudette), are you on dexedrine? you need some sleep.
Re: And herein lay the various self-contradictions and instabilities of “Recognize but Resist” traditionalism that causes R&R to chase after…
Faith. We believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic…and the gates of hell shall not prevail over the Rock.
PREVAIL: To be greater in strength or influence; triumph:
Whoever sits, however squirmishly, in Peter’s seat, Our Lord will never permit worldlings or hellhounds to triumph – this is a war, battles may be lost, but the war is already won. There’s a Pope because that’s what God wants. It’s like confession, we have to confess to a priest because that’s what God wants – it’s not like God doesn’t know what we need to confess or that God can’t forgive us without a priest, it’s because God wants us to confess to Him through an apostolic son. And so, we gotta have a Pope because God said so. To God a thousand years is as one day. the spirit of VII we all know is not heaven-sent – well anyone with an iota of Catholic honesty – so in His goodness, God gave us the SSPX – we can see how we are supposed to worship, supposed to believe, what it means to live uprightly. Now any priest can choose to begin to employ the Traditions kept obvious and to the front by the SSPX, whatever the Pope’s opinion’s. A little Latin here, a little incense there, citing some of the saints from the pulpit rather than popular worldings, permitting communicants to kneel to receive Holy Communion, stirring up the men of the parish to get off their butts and get into the sanctuary….
Faith – or do I mean Trust?
I mean both – and in God.
arguments against sedevacantism: http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/apologetics/contra-sedevacantism.html
Saluto: That was my understanding also, then I was reading through Father Hardon’s archives http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Q_and_A/Q_and_A_005.htm; Tradition in Action also presents both sides, but also seems to agree with Fr. Hardon http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f060_Intention.htmt . I am trying to understand this, and very much appreciate your response, Saluto.
Again, read Bishop Sandborn’s rebuttal of Williamson, the SSPX and “R&R” traditionalism that I linked to in a prior comment.
The Traditional Catholic movement is about two things and two things only: 1) Preserving the Traditional Catholic faith; and 2) Preserving the Traditional Catholic Mass and devotions.
It is not about political conspiracies, 9-11 truthism, multi-level vitamin marketing schemes, apparition chasing, Holocaust revisionism, or setting up alternative celebrity circuits to EWTN. Like Bishop Sandborn, I have spent the last 25 years as a Tradition Catholic keeping this weirdness out of local trad chapels I frequented.
And yes, Holocaust revisionism is weird. It also has nothing to do with preserving either the traditional Catholic faith, or the traditional Catholic mass.
And yes, I resent R&R traditionalists like yourself and Bishop Williamson attempting to link the two, or trying to justify or downplay his linkage of the two.
I realize I forgot to mention geocentrism. As popular as geocentrism has become among fundamentalist Protestants in America and R&R traditionalists, it too has nothing to do with preserving the Traditional Catholic faith or promoting the Traditional Catholic Mass.
Torq: You need to lighten up, dude.
And you need to get a handle on the concept of sarcasm.
The Cambridge DIctionary defines it as:
noun [U] /ˈsɑː.kæz.əm/ US /ˈsɑːr-/
› the use of remarks that clearly mean the opposite of what they say, made in order to hurt someone’s feelings or to criticize something in a humorous way:
And with respect to my post, I was aiming at the second part of the definition, i.e. “criticizing something in a humorous way.”
Just so there’s no misunderstanding.
what a thread. There are 64 comments in total (excluding this one), 21 of which are Tequila’s, and out of those 21 comments, T-T mentions God twice (once in relation to money) and Christ once. Out of the total 64 comments (thus far), God is mentioned 37 times, and Christ 22 (59, almost one mention for every comment) except if we subtract T-T’s 21 comments, well that makes a whole lot more for each comment…which means…any statisticians in the crowd? Which means…well…quite often T-T you forgot to mention God, Christ. However, T-T, you mention R&R, which I had previously thought ment rest and relaxation, 55 times out of 60. Me thinks an idol lurketh on the ‘preriphery’ of the negative space of which FI is so fond.
Well I did mention Catholic Answers which is what the Post was about 😉
Tequila……rest your case. Pride is taking over your reasoning.
I do not read any opinions of Bp. Sandborn, nor, am I interested in their argument.
My good friend Hugh gave me a wise answer to our restlesness……..” So many Catholics are going into a despair mode over Pope Francis’ radicalism. We must stand fast against every diabolic attempt to
destroy us. Continue to do our state in life. Continue to grow in virtue and holiness. Continue to hold fast to the same principles that totally
refute the sedevacantist position, which leads good souls to schism and to the very edge of the abyss. Many are falling into the demonic trap
of sedevacantism over Pope Francis. Be always on guard. The key, aside from thinking and living as true Catholics every moment of every
day, is to not allow ourselves to be tempted by the seductive sophists of anti-Catholic sedevacantism.”
God will not be mocked!
Keep the Faith!
Halina wrote: “Pride is taking over your reasoning.”
This is usually R&R talk for “I don’t have a rebuttal for your argument, therefore I will employ ad hominem.”
Are you Padre Pio, Halina? Has God gifted you with the grace of reading souls?
I don’t think most people would deny R&R traditionalists know how to count. Hence the obsession of some R&R traditionalists with proving that not exactly six million died during the Holocaust. (Whereas for Bishop Dolan and the majority of sedevacantists, like most folks, the 6 million figure is accepted as a reasonable approximation.) But I suppose it makes for a clever ad hominem when one wishes to avoid addressing the topic at hand. Perhaps because one is discomforted by knowing one’s conclusion came from shared premises?
Thus I find it interesting is how you and other R&R traditionalists are doing exactly what Louie accuses Karl Keating and Catholic Answers of doing.
So again, where is your traditional Catholic answer?
From what I’ve seen, Robert Siscoe, and others I imagine, have addressed these matters, outlining a critical distinction between a heretic being severed from the soul of the Church, compared to a heretic being severed from the body of the Church.
You state you must continue “to hold fast to the same positions that totally refute sedevacantism.” I have presented several articles that show how the principles of R&R traditionalism, when examined logically and in light of Catholic Tradition, must lead to the sedevacantist conclusion. So rather than ignore these arguments, or employ ad hominem attacks, or complain about how terrible you think the Jews are in Poland, why don’t you show me how these arguments are totally refuted in light of Traditional Catholic principles?
HINT: Usually refutation involves engaging the argument.
Siscoe’s arguments were refuted here:
Tequila…….I cannot read your soul, nor your heart. But, I can read your writings……you are frustrated. Turn your frustrations into ‘hate of heresy’……..that will be your victory!
Let us all go to the Immaculata, She will give us strength to fight and to pray for, the enemy of her Beloved Son Jesus Christ and His Mystical Body the Church!
We must not trust in our own intelligence. Like good Bp. Sheen said: ‘God gave us limit to our intelligence, but no limit to our stupidity.!’
…..it’s time to go back to my daily duties……Have a Blessed Day, All!
Torq: Once you get comfortable with the concept of sarcasm, you could try to wrap your head around irony.
Once again, the Cambridge Dictionary defines:
noun [U] (OPPOSITE RESULT) /ˈaɪ.rə.ni/
C2 a situation in which something which was intended to have a particular result has the opposite or a very different result”.
And now that we are familiar with this concept, I bring you “The Mysterious Conclave of 1958 from a site called NovusOrdoWatch.com. Sound familiar?
I will pray for you.
While, in fairness, I can see some potentially plausible counter-arguments in the link you posted regarding R. Siscoe’s 2013 writings on the subject, I do not see what can be considered to be a definitive refutation.
If I had to assess my emotional state right now, I would say I’m amused and not frustrated. I have long gotten use to the fact that R&R traditionalists, when seeking to avoid a debate that renders them uncomfortable about the truth of their own position, will attempt to “spiritualize” their answers when ad hominems fail.
Oh, I get irony. In fact I find this whole thread quite ironic in that R&R traditionalists are accusing Karl Keating and Catholic Answers of avoiding the uncomfortable truth, and yet at the same time are running away from the uncomfortable truth concerning the weaknesses and intrinsic instability of the R&R position.
It’s the sarcasm part I don’t get. Isn’t sarcasm suppose to be funny? Usually uttered in confidence of the rightness of one’s position being put forward? I don’t mean to offend you, but your attempts at sarcasm come across as nervous laughter. Like one attempting to avoid the truth of one’s own position.
John Salza does a nice job of explaining the errors of sedevacantism here:
Not really. In fact, I find Salza’s “explanation” about the so-called “errors” of sedevacantism about as convincing as his “explanation” about the so-called “errors” of those who reject geocentrism:
All this essay proves is that Salza is not any more competent at quoting Denzinger than he is quoting Holy Scripture.
In case you have not noticed, this is 2013 A.D. verging on 2014. You may want to think twice before sending a geocentrist to a Catholic theological debate.
“I have heard all the R&R traditionalist reasons and excuses for denying the Holocaust. I am neither convinced nor impressed by these arguments. Rather I am embarrassed that my 25 years experience promoting Catholic Tradition is being undermined by their bigoted and historically-challenged stupidity.”
I was fortunate enough to be born into the Catholic Church and I have never met in my life or read any of the people you are talking about. I actually don’t have any idea what you are talking about. I live my life and in my life I know countless Catholics, including my whole family, who believe in contraception, abortion, practice abortion, believe in pre-marital sex, believe in gay-marriage, never attend Church and believe the majority of Priests are homosexuals. The same belief is practiced amongst Catholics I know who attend Church. Their beliefs are validated when they hear the Pope, Bishops, or Priests spout bizarre things in regard to the faith. This is the evil that needs to be attacked. I think you are definitely on the wrong track and your hammering of “Traditionalists” is something other than the fighting for the Church. Ego maybe? I don’t know. But I hope you can calm down, really humble yourself and find the proper way to fight for the Church.
Nell, here is the example that was heard around the world and, unfortunately, tarnished all traditionalists in the eyes of the world, not just R&R traditionalists who spout this drivel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ3ObrgaWnc
Torq:”..Not really. In fact, I find Salza’s “explanation” about the so-called “errors” of sedevacantism about as convincing as his “explanation” about the so-called “errors” of those who reject geocentrism…”
Man, talk about dodge. You didnt even attempt to respond to Salza dismantling of the sede theory. Rather, you attempted to bring up geocentrism. Bad logic dude. You’re only demonstrating that you’re not prepared to really defend your position.
Something tells me you’re not really a sede. Or traditional.
Defend my position against contemporary advocates of geocentrism who cite biblical hermeneutics as their infallible source? No, I definitely draw the line there.
“God some times can allow that the vacancy of the Apostolic See be for a certain time. He can allow also that a doubt may come concerning the legitimacy of such-and-such an election, but He cannot allow that the whole Church accept as a pontiff one who is not really legitimate. Therefore, from the moment that the pope is accepted by the Church and is united to Her as the head to the body, we can no longer raise the doubt on the possible bias of election or the possible lack of the necessary conditions for legitimacy. Because this adherence of the Church heals in its root all faults committed at the moment of election, and proves infallibly the existence of all the conditions
required.” Cardinal Louis Billot S.J.
“It doesn’t matter that in past centuries some pontiff has been elected in an illegitimate fashion or has taken possession of the pontificate by fraud: it suffices that he has been accepted after as pope by all the Church, for this fact he has become the true pontiff.”
St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori
You hit the nail on the head.
Another good refutation of sedevacantism:
“R&R = Recognize but Resist.”
Too bad. “Rock ‘n’ roll traditionalism” had a sort of counter-intuitive appeal…
Dear Torquemada Tequila at December 8, 2013 6:17 am ,
like all Sedevacantists, you err and Fr. Chekeda, in failing to distinguish between a public, manifest, formal heretic and a public, manifest formal heretic who is pertinacious….
simply falling into an error or heresy, because one does not recognize it as such, while maintaining the intention to hold fast to Chirst’s teaching in truth and sincerity, does not make one a pertinacious heretic. One looses office only when one is a pertinacious heretic. That distinction is spelt out in canonical treatises, but was not made in the middle ages.
In order for a sacrament to be valid it must have three signs. They are matter, form and intention. Only Baptism is excluded from these requirements. If there is a doubt by the priest if it is truly the body of Jesus Christ i.e. Lepanto, then the Church provides, however, if the priest doesn’t believe at all then Jesus is not present. Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma. I also learned this in Catholic grammar school in the 1940’s. I’m very old!