On June 3rd the Society of St. Pius X published an interview of Bishop Bernard Fellay who, until last July, had served as its Superior General for twenty-four years.
Before we take a look at some of his comments, I wish to say two things. First, Bishop Fellay occupies a special place in my heart and in my prayers. He played a key role in opening my eyes to tradition.
I vividly recall back in my “conservative adolescence” (as I like to call it) watching one of Bishop Fellay’s conferences on the state of Rome and thinking, “This is how a bishop should speak!” I remain grateful to him and the SSPX in general.
Secondly, though the question posed in the title to this post concerns the Society’s relationship with “Francis,” I would encourage readers to examine their own attitude toward him while asking, “Is it traditional?”
With that said… When asked if the SSPX’s place should be “in Rome, because Rome is the head, but also the heart of the Church,” Bishop Fellay replied:
The heart of the Church is the Holy Ghost, it is the love of Jesus, and it is also the priesthood, so intimately tied to Our Lord and to His Sacred Heart. The head of the Church is Christ. Here below, the visible leader of the Church is the pope, to whom we are of course subject, whom we respect and have always respected, as well as all the legitimate authorities of the ecclesiastical hierarchy.
I find Bishop Fellay’s description of the Society’s relationship with “the pope” – and by this it is safe to assume that he means Jorge Bergoglio, aka “Francis” – interesting, for lack of a better word.
According to His Excellency’s reply, it would seem that this relationship is characterized primarily by “respect.” But what exactly does this mean? As we venture to find out, we will also consider what it means to be “subject” to the pope, as Bishop Fellay stated as well.
First, for an understanding of “respect” that is derived from the viewpoint of tradition, we will take a brief look at the Catechism of the Council of Trent (the Roman Catechism) where it is encouraged quite often; e.g., the respect due to the Word of God, the Saints, sacred images, one’s superiors, one’s parents, one’s spouse, etc.
Most notably, it states that the faithful must be enabled “to understand the respect due to the Church’s ministers.” As for what this entails, the Roman Catechism tells us that respect means to “hold in the highest esteem all that relates to him.” And remember, this pertains to all of the Church’s ministers.
So, does the SSPX really hold all that relates to “Francis” in the highest esteem?
God forbid! I am rather confident that neither Bishop Fellay, nor anyone else who speaks for the Society with any degree of authority, would say as much.
With this in mind, it would seem that Bishop Fellay is using the term “respect” in a more colloquial sense that, apart from explanation, is wide open to multiple interpretations. One thinks, for instance, of the way in which conciliar churchmen, including Bergoglio, like to declare their “respect” for sodomites, Jews, Muslims, heretics, atheists, and on and on.
What is not up for multiple interpretations, however, is the Church’s traditional understanding of that which must characterize the faithful’s relationship with the pope; including the SSPX. And make no mistake about it, folks; respect is not nearly enough – no matter how one defines it.
The Roman Catechism sheds light on why this is the case as it describes the pope as:
…the Father and guide of all the faithful, of all the Bishops, and of all the prelates, no matter how high their power and office.
Some three centuries later, the First (and only authentic) Vatican Council stated:
In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith, the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd … so that they [the pastors and flocks of the entire church] may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation (cf Vatican Council I, Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 3, Arts. 3,6).
Pope Pius XII further explained the necessity of unity with the pope stating:
It is He [Our Lord] who enriches pastors and teachers and above all His Vicar on earth with the supernatural gifts of knowledge, understanding and wisdom, so that they may loyally preserve the treasury of faith, defend it vigorously, and explain it and confirm it with reverence and devotion (cf Mystici Corporis, Art. 50).
Taken together, tradition teaches us that all of the members of the Church…
…are obligated to profess, as with one voice along with the Roman Pontiff, the same faith such as he defends it, explains it, and confirms it simply because he is uniquely endowed by Christ with supernatural gifts that enable him to serve as our Father, our teacher, and our guide.
This, according to Catholic tradition, is a non-negotiable part what it means to be “subject” to the pope. No one who wishes to credibly claim an attachment to tradition is justified in watering this down, qualifying it, or otherwise parsing its plain meaning in order to make it more comfortably fit the disastrous circumstances of today.
So, let us ask: Is the Society of St. Pius X (or any faithful Catholic for that matter) truly willing to take an oath promising to profess, as with one voice along with “Francis,” the ‘faith’ as taught, defended, explained, and confirmed by him as their Father and guide?
Of course not! No faithful Catholic can possibly do this, and the reason is plain:
To do so would be to depart from unity with the true Church of Christ. It would effectively amount to declaring one’s membership in what must be understood as a new and decidedly false religion; albeit one operating under the Catholic name in the manner of a shameless imposter.
Bishop Fellay apparently understands this latter point well; namely, that the conciliar church is not the Holy Roman Catholic Church. As he stated in the interview:
But you know that we are going through a terrible crisis, a truly diabolical disorientation, which has replaced eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth, with a new Rome, born of the Second Vatican Council, a neo-modernist Rome with liberal tendencies, which we must resist to keep the Faith. [Emphasis added]
Now, certainly, some will argue that a faithful Catholic can and indeed must qualify their obligation to maintain unity with the pope as plainly taught by tradition; pledging to stand with him when he professes the true faith as we ourselves may understand it, while refusing to profess the ‘faith’ as taught, defended, explained, and confirmed by him when he errs; again, as we ourselves may understand it.
Sounds almost feasible, no? For many years I found no fault with this approach, but then the obvious hit me over the head like a ton of bricks:
This is not what it means, according to authentic Catholic tradition, to be a member of the Church that Jesus Christ established for our salvation; a Body endowed with a visible head, His Vicar, upon whom we can and indeed must depend in matters of faith and morals.
The “pick and choose” mentality, by contrast, is exactly what the heretics and schismatics – those outside the Body – have always done and continue to do, and not just in this post-conciliar age of poisonous “Joint Statements.”
For example, in 1863, a movement known as the National Reform Association, comprised of Protestant ministers, theologians, and lawyers lobbied to have the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution amended to include the following bracketed text:
We the People of the United States, [humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the nations, his revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government,] and in order to form a more perfect union. (See Christopher Ferrara, Liberty, the God that Failed)
In this, these well-meaning heretics were in union with the reigning Roman Pontiff, Pope Pius IX, and yet they were also very much opposed, no doubt, to his Syllabus of Errors and resisted much else concerning the faith such as he taught, defended, explained, and confirmed it.
Ask yourself, dear reader: How is this any different than so-called “traditionalists” who claim to be “in unity” with “Francis” when he condemns abortion, but openly resist him and the numerous grave errors that are taught, defended, explained, and confirmed in Amoris Laetitia?
What was missing for the above mentioned Protestant defenders of Christ’s Kingship?
Among other things, they evidently did not believe, as all Catholics must, that the Roman Pontiff is above all others, endowed by Christ with the supernatural gifts of knowledge, understanding and wisdom, so that he may loyally preserve the treasury of faith, defend it vigorously, and explain it and confirm it.
Does Bishop Fellay and the SSPX have confidence that this is true of Francis?
If they do, it would very difficult to explain how they are justified in refusing to profess the same ‘faith’ as he, while also claiming to remain Catholic themselves.
In any case, His Excellency has no difficulty recognizing that the special graces that are afforded to certain men based upon the dignity of their particular state renders them a dependable guide in matters of grave importance. He states:
However, the “Roman question,” as Archbishop Lefebvre called it, rests in the hands of the Superior General. He is the one who possesses the graces of state to realize concretely the development of the relations of the Society with Rome.
So, Bishop Fellay believes that by virtue of his election as Superior General, and the graces that accompany his state, Fr. Davide Pagliarani can be depended upon to lead the SSPX in the right direction. Fair enough.
As such, however, is it not reasonable for one to expect Bishop Fellay and the Society to openly declare that the uniquely profound graces of state that accompany the Petrine Office render Francis all the more dependable with regard to leading the entire Church?
I, for one, see no evidence whatsoever that they genuinely believe this to be the case. Even so, the SSPX continues to call Jorge Bergoglio “Pope” and “Holy Father.”
Though many will simply refuse to see it, something just doesn’t add up.
We have already mentioned Pope Pius XII’s description of the special graces that accompany the Petrine state, but let us now turn to the words of Our Blessed Lord Himself:
And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren. (Luke 22:31-32)
As all Catholics necessarily believe, this prayer of Our Lord for Peter also applies to his Successors. For nearly 2,000 years, history confirmed that His prayer (like every word that comes forth from His mouth) has not only been answered, but more properly speaking, it created that of which He spoke because He is Lord!
As the First Vatican Council saw fit to reaffirm:
So the fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith:
The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our Lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the Christian religion. (Vatican Council I, Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 4, Art. 2) [Emphasis added]
One notes that “the Catholic religion,” which consists in much more than just those doctrines that are properly considered dogmatic or infallible, “has always been preserved unblemished” in Rome – just as expected according to the plainly expressed will of Jesus Christ Himself – as evidenced by what “the Apostolic See preaches;” that is, by what the Roman Pontiff teaches, defends, explains, etc.
Does the SSPX, or anyone in their right Catholic mind, wish to argue that this describes the preaching of the one known as Francis? Do they wish to declare that Christ is building His Church on the preaching of Francis and the likes of Amoris Laetitia?
Indeed, some among us are so desperate to avoid the obvious that they will point to men like Honorius, Liberius, and John XXII as examples of popes whose faith failed; in spite of the fact that these cases are in no way comparable to the present crisis.
If this describes you, think long and hard about what you are saying:
Do you really wish to declare that Jesus’s prayer for Peter and those Roman Pontiffs who would follow went unanswered; even though tradition plainly teaches that the word of Our Lord, in this case as it pertains to His Vicar, “cannot fail of its effect?”
To wrap this up, I will conclude with the following from Bishop Fellay:
This religious ignorance has only grown. Today, we need to find an even more serious word, but one that conveys the same idea. We have entered a desert, an abyssal void of ignorance…even forgetting the Creator, the author of this world, on whom every creature absolutely depends. Just as much, the Redeemer has disappeared and consequently His Law, real love. The work of the Redeemer is unknown, as is His law of love.
A more serious word? I have a suggestion; how about apostasy, and this thanks in no small part to churchmen who, even though they surely must know better, are unwilling to speak uncomfortable truths plainly.
The overwhelming majority of Catholics – and this includes no small number of so-called traditionalists – are ignorant as to what the Holy Roman Catholic Church truly is, how to recognize her and our duties toward her. They are likewise ignorant when it comes to who the Roman Pontiff is, how to recognize him and our duties toward him.
As for the former, to his credit Bishop Fellay made it fairly clear that the institution presently posing as the Holy Roman Catholic Church is not Eternal Rome; it is a new Rome, a neo-modernist Rome, one that does not have the Faith.
As for the latter, it only stands to reason, does it not, that the visible head of this #FAKE CHURCH, Jorge Bergoglio, is also an imposter?
May it please God to give Bishop Fellay and others like him the grace to recognize and declare as much just as openly and plainly.
I too now have mixed thoughts about +Fellay, as he also played a key role in my move to tradition. Indeed I even posted a long video of one of his talks on one of my channels: On the Crisis in the Church https://youtu.be/NcrlnaUhf1w I wonder if there’s anything in this talk he’d now repudiate or water down.
The logic of this essay seems to lead beyond mere “Benevacantism” to full blown sedevacantism. After all, the difference between Francis and every other post-Judas Council pope (or “pope”) is just a matter of degree, not kind; that is, every last one of them was also on board with the Judas Council. Francis is simply its personification in extremis.
It’s almost like we make encyclicals etc., per, say, into an infallible magisterium rather than keeping the 3 levels of the magisterium with 2 infallible levels and one not infallible or fallible level. When, where, or how has the infallible magisterium in it’s 2 infallible levels not upheld the prayer of Jesus Christ for Peter? What we really lament is the fact that modern Catholics have to know the 3 levels of the magisterium, but the pre-conciliar Catholics could blindly follow the pope with no knowledge of the levels of the magisterium. Having to know the 3 levels of the magisterium has not made Catholics like Protestants! We are not picking and choosing contrary to Peter, we are only discerning that which is from the higher infallible levels of the magisterium, and pointing out that the post-conciliar popes are teaching contrary to the infallible levels of the magisterium, when engaging the fallible level of the magisterium. It is precisely because the modernists slept through theology class and do not understand this, and they believe they are capable of destroying Holy Mother Church.
You can prove Francis is not a pope by proving Pope Benedict did not renounce the munus. Fr. Kramer may even be correct that by denying the most basic teachings someone can prove they are not a material heretic, but an actual heretic, because it seems there is always a point when the truth becomes self-evident. With Francis you cannot even throw out a hermeneutic of continuity for reasonable doubt to try and prove his heresy is material. But I don’t see your article as proving Francis is not pope, and your article does seem to have a sedevacantist flavor, more than a Fr. Kramer flavor.
On the Eve of Pentecost, let us all pray for the Light of Glory to illumine our hearts and minds to see through the thick and blinding fog that has blinded even the “most elect” in these days of darkness.
“Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first [Vatican II] …(2 Thessalonians 2:3)”
“And now you know what withholdeth, that he [The Antichrist] may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity already worketh: only that he [The Pope] who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way [Benedict XVI]. (Ibid 6, 7) ….
” And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error to believe lying:
That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity. (Ibid 10, 11).
Lord have mercy on us and on all the faithful! Let us all cling to our very last breath to: “The Holy Rosary and the Sign of My Son.”
I’m glad you mentioned the famous “operation of error” verse. Our age’s defining feature is surely diabolical disorientation and hence operation of error.
As for the Rosary, you’ll welcome my video here:
The Rosary — All 15 Mysteries — Gregorian Chant
https://youtu.be/Muo1NNKUK80
@Ratio: Thank you for your observations. You note a “Fr. Kramer flavor” in Mr. Verrecchio’s article. What are your thoughts on a “Br. Bugnolo flavor”? Have you seen his manuscript?( https://www.ppbxvi.org/quaestio-English.pdf )
It seems to me that Br. Bugnolo’s is a most detailed and charitable response to Msgr Bux’s October 2018 call for an examination into the juridical validity of BXVI’s resignation announcement. I find that the most illuminating facts are presented on the first two pages of his 17=page manuscript.
It is here that he notes the public statements made in February 2013 of at least three Latin scholars regarding the errors in BXVI’s Non solum propter. I think it is significant that these public statements were made BEFORE the Cardinals’ “retreat” in March 2013 that is BEFORE former Cdl Bergoglio’s debut as Fauxp.
I don’t recall Fr. Kramer mentioning Prof Enrico Radaelli’s February 18, 2013 supplication to Pope Benedict to rescind his February 11th “resignation” but perhaps I missed it in all that Fr. Kramer has written and spoken about regarding the Era of Apostasy in which we live. He is both a prolific writer and researcher.
@AlphonsusJr: Thank you for your Rosary video. I am grateful to have this resource.
You’re most welcome. You may want to download it. Youtube might nuke it at any time.
I began to lose trust in the SSPX when they started to refer to the Novus Ordo “fake” church as the “official” church–meaning having authority. A pseudo-church that is anti-Christ has no authority.
Agreed AlphonsusJr. If one can make this logical conclusion:
“As for the latter, it only stands to reason, does it not, that the visible head of this #FAKE CHURCH, Jorge Bergoglio, is also an imposter?”
and also believes:
“the First (and only authentic) Vatican Council”
then isn’t the logical conclusion that all of the popes who promulgated, professed and taught the fake council to the Universal Church are equally fake?
“Fauxp.” I just saw that from Ann Barnhardt. More specifically, that would be Fauxp Prances.
Yes, Bp. Fellay continues to refer to Francis as “Pope” or “Holy Father.” He is not a sedevacantist, and Archbishop Lefebvre was not a sedevacantist. Some would say that Francis is obviously a heretic, and therefore sedevacantism is the only option; but no, it is not.
Francis is only more open about his Modernism than his predecessors, but that’s not a bad thing. We need to see what Modernism truly is in all of its ugliness and heresy. To take a position of sedevacantism means that Modernism isn’t really a factor. Instead, the sedevacantist position is that one is either Catholic….or not, and it negates all other factors in favor of one simplistic explanation (sedevacantism).
Why do you think it is, Louie, that the sedevacantists here rarely read more than two paragraphs of your articles? It’s because they cannot tolerate lengthy explanations. Either you are sedevacantist….or you are not. That’s all that really matters to them. They gotta keep it simple, since dealing with the Crisis is too stressful.
For your information, I read the entire article.
I do as well! I thoroughly enjoy his articles.. I believe Louie raises some very good question and because of his many articles throughout the years I finally made the big step.
Did not Christ say let your answer be yes or no? That is how the Catholic Faith works in an objective world. Either Francis is Catholic and the Pope or else he is neither. It really isn’t that hard to frame the issue. Many people complicate the matter to avoid the two harsh opposite conclusions. If he is a Catholic Pope, then you have to give up all your traditional devotions and get with the new program. If he is not, then the whole facade crumbles and you realize you were deceived. Both conclusions are uncomfortable so many try to forge some middle ground that holds the fractured pieces together. Well good luck. As each day goes by, Francis is taunting you and laughing and you make excuse after excuse to keep his heretical backside on a Chair he has no business occupying.
Well then, you are an exception.
Congratulations on making the big step. How has the Crisis in the church been abated because of it?
No, perhaps you should avoid making generalizations.
There is no crisis in the Church. The crisis is actually in society and a world that has rejected the Church and all things Catholic. It is the world that is in trouble, not the Church. That abomination in Rome is not the Church but a creature of Man.
Hello, im new to the blog and reading it it isnt clear to me what position does writer hold? Is he sedevacantist or something else?
He’s Catholic.
Sedes have left the Church, therefore they are no longer Catholic.
Who gave you that idea? “Sedes” consider that post vatican2 popes are not popes i never heard that any sedevacantist said he left the Church.
On April 8, the Novus Ordo Watch Facebook page linked to Louie’s article “What have we become?” and wrote: ·
“Keep praying for Louie Verrecchio, folks. He’s coming extremely close to figuring it out. The only way to remain a Catholic the way all were Catholic until 1958, is to reject the apparent successors to Pope Pius XII as impostors.”
My understanding is that Louie considers himself a “new sede” beginning with the current papacy. Perhaps, I misunderstood. I hope Louie chimes in here.
Would you describe the following as being among the better presentations of the case for sedevacantism?
TR Media: Bishop Donald Sanborn: The SSPX, “Resistance,” and Sedevacantism, London, Dec 2013
https://youtu.be/nsRKKMVbN0M
That would be the case if the Vatican II Church and the Catholic Church were one and the same, and if sedevacantists recognized its visible heads as true Popes, yet rejected their authority regardless.
Yet the Vatican II Church has professed the following: “It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.” (From paragraph 3 of Unitatis Redintegratio, Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism)
Compare with Pope Leo XIII from 1896: “The Church of Christ, therefore, is one and the same for ever; those who leave it depart from the will and command of Christ, the Lord – leaving the path of salvation they enter on that of perdition. “Whosoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress. He has cut himself off from the promises of the Church, and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ….He who observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation” (S. Cyprianus, De Cath. Eccl. Unitate, n. 6).” (From paragraph 5 of Satis Cognitum, on the Unity of the Church)
Vatican II professes (among many other things) that non-Catholic sects can be means of salvation. Yet to be non-Catholic means they profess a different faith, and thus by default have cut themselves off from the true Faith of Christ, depriving themselves of the means of salvation.
So to answer the charge: sedevacantists merely recognize that the Vatican II Church cannot possibly be the Catholic Church, by virtue of what each one professes and teaches. They contradict each other, and the Body of Christ cannot contradict itself.
Archbishop Lefebvre:
“What could be clearer? We must henceforth obey and be faithful to the Conciliar Church, no longer to the Catholic Church. Right there is our whole problem: we are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church, the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong! That Conciliar Church is a schismatic church because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship… The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or the faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.”
Archbishop Lefebvre:
“What about those bishops who are not liberals but still oppose and criticize you?
Their opposition is based on an inaccurate understanding of obedience to the pope. It is, perhaps, a well-meant obedience, which could be traced to the ultramontane obedience of the last century, which in those days was good because the popes were good. However, today, it is a blind obedience, which has little to do with a practice and acceptance of true Catholic faith. At this stage it is relevant to remind Catholics all over the world that obedience to the pope is not a primary virtue. The hierarchy of virtues starts with the three theological virtues of faith, hope and charity followed by the four cardinal virtues of justice, temperance, prudence and fortitude. Obedience is a derivative of the cardinal virtue of justice. Therefore it is far from ranking first in the hierarchy of virtues.”
Excellent retort, ASM.
Dear Maryiloveher,
I have always appreciated your posting AB Lefebvres’ quotes, and am happy to find them here again!
God bless you.
I endorse Tom’s comment on where the crisis lay. As St Nilus wrote in his prophesy on this age we live in; his feast day is 12 November, men have become unrecognisable, lust and evil deeds are sweeping the earth.
In the OT, prophet Zacharias Ch XI, v 15 – 17 “And the Lord said to me; Take to thee yet the instruments of a foolish shepherd. For behold I will raise up a shepherd in the land who shall not visit what is forsaken, nor seek what is scattered, nor heal what is broken, nor nourish that which standith, and he shall eat the flesh of the fat ones and break their bones” Haydock bible.
I recall JP II in one of his books making reference to the tale of Otto and the fat sheep. The sheep were being stolen from the pasture at night; surveillance saw them entered a ruining castle and disappeared. Lost to the true faith and the pastor was silent. OTTO being a reference to that masonic cult.
Since Pope Pius 12, how many Shepherds of our flock have, visited the forsaken?. (Clerical abuse abandoned its victims) seek that was scattered [ evangelised as the Apostles did] instead ran after ecumenism and unity with other false religions and idols; heal what was broken? or nourish that which standith? Tradition stands. But its being terrorised not nourished by the post concilliar Romans.
So finally Zacharias Ch 11, v 17 “Oh Shepherd and idol, that foresaketh the flock; the sword upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall quite wither away, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened.” Could that resemble JP 11’s clinical appearance towards the end of his life?
God have mercy on him if it was; and the rest of us.
There is an interregnum its seems and it could go on for many years.
Our Lady Help of Christians pray for us
Maryiloveher, Thank you, well said! We didn’t leave they did.
Yes, there are some awful presentations out there, but Bp Sanborn is always logical. He sums up our current times with this simple question, “Is Vatican II Catholic or not?” And he says depending on how you answer, there are only two logical conclusions that must be drawn. Spoiler alert, R&R is not one of them.
I would agree with Tom (although I have not watched that particular presentation by Bishop Sanborn).
You are needlessly insulting and also quite ignorant to say such things. All Catholics are struggling with these questions and there don’t appear to be any good answers. Sedevacantists may very well be right. Or they could be wrong. What they are not, is stupid. In fact, though I am not committed one way or the other, it seems that their position is the most logical and internally consistent. It is an emotional, illogical, wishful thinking to believe, in spite of all the evidence, that all these heretical popes have been infallible and it seriously undermines the Catholic Faith.
So if sedevacantists reckognise vatican 2 popes as real popes and reject them they would be ok? Your explanation doesnt make sense
Dear Fleur de Lis,
Thank you so much.
@Bembem123
Not at all. Allow me to elaborate.
The common charge against sedevacantists is that, by declaring the post-Vatican II popes to not be true Popes at all, then they are schismatics and have thus left the Church. However, this is a misinterpretation of what schism is.
Per the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia, schism is defined as “the rupture of ecclesiastical union and unity”. In short, “anyone becomes a schismatic who, though desiring to remain a Christian, rebels against legitimate authority.”
Thus, in order for the charge of schism against sedevacantists to be valid, they would have to be rebelling against legitimate authority. However, that misses the exact basis of the sedevacantist position: namely, that by virtue of professing heresy and contradiction to Church doctrine and dogma, the Vatican II hierarchy lacks legitimate authority by the judgment of divine law, and is therefore owed no obedience at all.
Contrast this with those (be they Novus Ordo conservatives or FFSP/Institute of Christ the King traditionalists or Recognize-and-Resisters like the SSPX, in general) who profess Vatican II to be a true Council of the Church, and that everyone from John XXIII onward were true Popes…and yet,
-They pick and choose which of their doctrines and teachings to follow,
-They think nothing of calling V2 a “failed” or “heretical” council, and
-They do not hesitate to call Francis or Benedict XVI various flavors of heretic, yet profess one or the other to be a true Pope.
However, the idea of a true Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, called by a true Pope – the visible head of the Church, Her supreme pastor, and the bedrock of unity for the faithful – being a “failure” or “heretical” is a contradiction in terms. Thus, to recognize Francis/Benedict XVI/etcetera as true Popes and yet refute their jurisdictional primacy is to engage in actual schism.
In short: sedevacantists are not schismatics, because they outright deny that the post-Vatican II hierarchy possess legitimate authority.
On the other hand: the various conservatives and traditionalists who maintain that Vatican II was a true Council, and that John XXIII/Paul VI/John Paul I/John Paul II/Benedict XVI/Francis are true Popes…while at the same time refuting or denying their authority or their teachings (in lesser or greater degrees)…are themselves rupturing the unity of the “Church”, and thus by their own ideological presuppositions are guilty of schism.
I don’t think it’s necessary for Louie to tell us one way or another if he is or not a Sedevacantist. He presents the facts and we research it ourselves. I, for one, enjoy reading the comments to find out everyones thoughts on the matter. He keeps everyone guessing.
Excellent article.
Archbishop Lefebvre on sedevacantism: http://strobertbellarmine.net/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Sedevacantist_Thesis.pdf
Very fascinating stuff, there.
One can only speculate about what would have been had Lefebvre opted, instead of pragmatism, for the conviction of St. Athanasius and his dogged refusal to acknowledge the Arian hierarchy in his day. What could have been, had the heresies of Vatican II been logically drawn to a lack of true papal authority just a little bit sooner?
Alas, speculation shall only remain speculation, and I’m hardly in a position to blame him for the choices he made, in light of how unprecedented the situation was after Vatican II.
Dear Louie , I think you spelled out Almighty Gods spiritual chaistisement quite well in this article in conjunction with the warnings of the Blessed Virgin.
Louie,
great article, one could also quote from Pius VI’s Condemnation of the Council of Pistoia: Prop 1. Denz. 1501:
1501 1. The proposition, which asserts “that in these later times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ,”–heretical.
If the Popes after Pius XII are true Popes, then it would be heretical to hold that the doctrines of the Council and the post conciliar magisterium have led to confusion and obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion; as this would be impossible under true successors to Peter.
And this would imply that Benedict is also a heretic. For the teaching prior to the council was that the Church of Christ IS the Roman Catholic Church. Ratzinger obscured this Truth with the word, “subsists.” And since Jp2 and Montini had no objection to this heresy, and promoted the heretical V2 Council, that males them heretics as well.