Posted on 10/04/2005 12:30:19 PM PDT by GratianGasparri
Of Canons and Culture Sedevacantists at the Gates?
Pete Vere
Almost fifteen years ago, I assisted at a Tridentine liturgy for the first time. I was seventeen and the liturgy was offered by an old French-Canadian priest who always insisted upon high Mass. The Latin chant, the golden vestments, the rich scent of incense accompanying our prayers to Heaven – this Mass was the most reverent experience I had ever shared. From that day forward I was a traditional Catholic.
Although many will find this hilarious, another year passed before I discovered that the traditionalist movement also existed among English-speaking Catholics. From here I discovered wonderful resources like the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), the Latin Liturgy Association, and of course the Wanderer. I also discovered that traditionalists in the English-speaking world, like those within the Francophonie, are divided according to ideological lines.
Not all traditionalists hold to the Ecclesia Dei position. Expressing concerns about the orthodoxy of the Second Vatican Council and the 1969 missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI, some traditionalists believe that the last five popes have not been true successors to St. Peter. We call these folks sedevacantists. This term comes from the Latin expression sede vacante, which refers to an empty see. Sedevacantists believe that the See of Peter had been empty since the death of Pope Pius XII. Noted sedevacantists include: Hutton Gibson, Bishop Antonio Castro de Mayer (at times), and Fr. Anthony Cekada.
Some traditionalists hold to a variation of the sedevacantist theory called sedeprivationism. Sedeprivationists believe that the last four or five papal claimants were material popes but not formal ones. While some disagreement exists over John XXIII, sedeprivationists agree that Paul VI onward possessed the temporal authority belonging to the Roman Pontiff, but not the spiritual authority that belongs to one who formally holds the Petrine Office. Fr. Guerard des Lauriers, the famous Dominican theologian and principal author of the Ottaviani Intervention, is the most renown proponent of sedeprivationism. According to Fr. Cekada, des Lauriers probably coined the words sedevacantist and sedeprivationist.
Neither sedevacantism nor sedeprivationism claimed many adherents back when I first embraced the tridentine liturgy. Thus the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) spoke of the “Council’s decrees, constitutions, and declarations, contain[ing], more or less explicitly, some of the same doctrinal errors for which liberals in the past had been condemned,” [SSPX US District official website, “What are Catholics to Think of Vatican II?” (September 23, 2005)] and of the Novus Ordo being “intrinsically evil,” but SSPX adherents were not to publicly question the validity of the post-conciliar Roman Pontiffs. Sedevacantism became the line that older generations of traditional Catholics dare not cross.
Today, things have changed. Surf traditionalist websites for any length of time and you soon discover that younger traditionalists do not shy away from sedevacantism. Among the growing list of relatively young sedevacantist authors are: John Lane, John S. Daly, Mario Derksen, Griff Ruby, and the Dimond brothers. Many others hang around individual blogs, chat lines, message boards and email discussion forums. From my own experience as a canonist, I now field more questions relating to sedevacantism than every other aspect of traditionalism combined. These questions come from other canonists and other laity. If my recent experiences are any indication, sedevacantism is on the rise.
Thus it was with great interest that I recently came across Christopher Ferrara’s “Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise” on the internet. This is the first instalment of a three-part series in which the New Jersey attorney attempts to refute the growing sedevacantist phenomena. Since we both agree that Pope Benedict XVI is the lawful successor to St. Peter, I was hoping Ferrara would at least make a dent in the sedevacantist position.
The piece got off to a strong start. Ferrara defined the term sedevacantism, reminded the reader of the Church’s indefectability, and provided useful historical information about past periods of interregnum. For those who are wondering, the Church has never gone more than two-and-a-half years without a Supreme Pontiff. This is well under the forty-five years claimed by most sedevacantists.
After this strong start, Ferrara switched gears and began referring to sedevacantism as “the Enterprise”. I question whether this was the best use of Ferrara’s legendary skills as a polemicist. Not only does it switch the reader’s focus from substance to style, but as a typical Generation-X technophile – and it appears that many new sedevacantists are Gen-X technophiles – what immediately comes to mind is Star Trek. Surely Ferrara was not suggesting that sedevacantists boldly go where nobody has gone before? Although the possible reference to Star Trek seems trivial when sedevacantism impacts the salvation of souls, I nevertheless found it distracting as I continued reading what was actually a pretty decent attempt to summarize some past arguments put forward against sedevacantism. Like many other Gen-X traditional Catholic technophiles, I wondered why Ferrara would evoke an image of sedevacantists as my favorite television characters.
In the aftermath of the first installment, several sedevacantists expressed outrage. Three responses in particular circulated around the internet. The first came from Fr. Martin Stépanich. It was high on emotion but failed to address issues of substance in my opinion. The second, from Holy Family Monastery, displayed great zeal but a poor grasp of Catholic methodology as Br. Peter Dimond separated numerous papal quotations from their original context. Neither of these attempted rebuttals merited a response from Ferrara in my opinion.
Yet the third response differed. This rebuttal came Fr. Anthony Cekada who is respected by even many non-sedevacantists for his sharp intellect and his bright sense of humor. The sedevacantist theologian systematically tore into Ferrara, as can be seen in the his opening paragraphs as follows:
“Mr. Ferrara advocates essentially the same position as the Society of St. Pius X, Fr. Nicholas Gruner, and countless others: You claim to ‘recognize’ Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI as true popes. At the same time YOU decide which papal teachings, laws, sacramental rites, or commands are good, and which you’ll reject, resist or publicly denounce.
“Under this system, a pope no longer possesses the supreme authority to ‘bind and loose’ on earth. A New Jersey lawyer, the Superior General of SSPX, the CEO of the Fatima Industry, the editor of Catholic Family News, or, generally, any traditional Catholic whatsoever, does the final review for him.
“The New Mass? A sacrilege, intrinsically evil, or the pope didn’t promulgate it correctly anyway. Ecumenism? No thanks, the pope’s wrong. Consecration of Russia to Immaculate Heart? The pope didn’t do it right. Excommunicated or suspended? Invalid, no matter what the pope and his curia say. Consecrate bishops against the pope’s explicit will? Necessity lets me do it. And so on.
“Who needs to visit the Throne of Peter? You give the final thumbs-up or -down from your easy chair.
“The pope speaks. You decide…
“This system makes a mockery of the Catholic teaching that the pope possesses not only a ‘Primacy of honor’ (framed photos in the vestibules of wildcat traditionalist chapels, say) but also ‘supreme and full power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, both in matters of faith and morals, as well as in those things that pertain to the discipline and rule of the Church spread throughout the world,’ a power that is ‘ordinary and immediate over each and every church, as well as over each and every pastor and member of the faithful, independent of any human authority.’ (Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution De Ecclesia Christi, DZ 1827; Canon 218.)
“Mr. Ferrara wrote a book on the post-Vatican II mess entitled The Great Façade. No wonder. Mr. Ferrara’s system gives you a cardboard pope — ‘for display purposes only.’”
After responding to several arguments proposed by Ferrara, the sedevacantist priest concluded that Ferrara was “a windbag”. As of this writing, Ferrara has yet to publicly respond in writing. Nevertheless, Ferrara subsequently delivered a talk on sedevacantism at a SSPX parish in Cincinnati. Cekada happened to be in the audience and the two verbally sparred during the question-and-answer segment that followed Ferrara’s talk.
Ferrara reportedly challenged the Fr. Cekada to list any new doctrine taught by the Second Vatican Council. As some traditionalist commentators noted, Ferrara’s challenge appears to represent a departure from the SSPX’s position concerning the Council. When I asked Ferrara to publicly clarify his position, he responded via email:
“Traditionalists (versus sedevacantists) do not say Vatican II was ‘illegitimate.’ It was an ecumenical council. But Vatican II did not—indeed could not—present any new doctrines, for as the First Vatican Council declared: ‘[T]he Holy Spirit was not promised to the Successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine…’
“Hence ‘conservative’ Catholics err when they say traditionalists ‘dissent from Vatican II.’ The Council did not require Catholics to believe anything new. Thus, there is no conciliar doctrine from which to ‘dissent.’ (The endless debate over whether Dignitatis Humanae changed Catholic doctrine only demonstrates this.)
“For the same reason, sedevacantists err when they attack traditionalists for not ‘admitting’ the implications of Vatican II being a ‘false counsel’ that taught ‘false doctrine.’ Since Vatican II presented no new doctrine, it could hardly have presented false doctrine.
“What traditionalists really oppose is not doctrine as such, but ambiguities capable of heterodox interpretation, the imprudent ‘opening to the world’ advocated in Gaudium et spes, pastoral initiatives such as ‘dialogue,’ ‘interreligius dialogue’ and ‘ecumenism,’ the disastrous ‘liturgical reform,’ and innumerable scandalous statements and doings in the name of these novelties.
“Even non-traditionalists have conceded key traditionalist points:
“Msgr. George A. Kelly has observed that ‘The documents of the Council contain enough basic ambiguities to make the postconciliar difficulties understandable.’
“Then Father Ratzinger ‘repeatedly’ criticized Gaudium et Spes, calling it ‘unsatisfactory’ and saying it ‘is not at all prepared to make sin the center of the theological edifice’ (CNS Report, May 2, 2005). Prof. James Hitchcock, writing thirty-six years later, criticized the Council for attempting to impose ‘a compulsory optimism on Catholics” and for “its failure to acknowledge the full power of evil in the world…’ (Catholic World Report, May 2003).
“No less than John Paul II, in his inaugural encyclical Redemptor Hominis, admitted that ‘it is perhaps a good thing’ that Catholics express their fears that ecumenical efforts ‘are harmful to the cause of the Gospel, are leading to a further rupture in the Church, are causing confusion of ideas in questions of faith and morals and are ending up with a specific indifferentism.’
“The former Cardinal Ratzinger himself has admitted that ‘the Church, throughout her history, has never abolished nor forbidden orthodox liturgical forms, which would be quite alien to the Spirit of the Church… Thus the Council… did not prohibit the former [liturgical] books….’ (Address of October 24, 1998).
“In short, traditionalists oppose non-doctrinal novelties masquerading as doctrine. I wish our critics on both sides would finally get this right.”
Can Ferrara persuade the average SSPX adherent and those of like mind to share his position vis-a-vis the Second Vatican Council? I hope so. This will at least partially inoculate younger traditionalists against sedevacantism. Yet Ferrara yields a major issue to Cekada and the sedevacantists if the answer is no. After all, as Cekada argues in his popular sedevacantist pamphlet, Traditionalists, Infallibility & the Pope, “One of the essential properties of the Catholic Church is her indefectibility. This means, among other things, that her teaching is ‘immutable and always remaining the same.’ (St. Ignatius of Antioch.) It is impossible for her to contradict her own teaching.”
With the debate between Ferrara and Cekada unresolved, I contacted Vin Lewis for his take on sedevacantism. Vin is a popular Catholic apologist among Catholic traditionalists – particularly those who follow the late Fr. Feeney. (I hesitate to employ the label “Feeneyite” because Fr. Feeney died in full communion with Rome and most of his followers have subsequently regularized their canonical situation. Therefore, the vast majority of “Feeneyites” are Catholic.) Vin is renown for his strict logic, his brutal honesty, and his heavy use of the socratic method.
Vin had not been following the debate between Ferrara and Cekada when I interviewed him. Nevertheless, he expressed disappointment in an earlier debate that had pitted him against two well-known sedevacantist apologists. “I spent half an hour trying to get them to answer a single question,” Vin stated. “If the pope loses the papacy because of heresy, does he resume the papacy if he makes a good confession?” Vin then asked a similar question about a heretical pope-elect: “Does he suddenly ascend to the papacy upon making a good confession?”
While Vin’s question initially struck me as overly simplistic, its true genius became apparent as we continued our discussion. Only God can read the heart of the penitent. Moreover, the seal of confession is inviolable – even when the penitent is a papal claimant. Thus how does one know that a heretical pope has not been reconciled to the Church through a good confession?
Additionally, the Church has traditionally selected a pope by one of three methods: by ballot, by compromise or by acclamation. While several centuries have passed since the Church selected a Roman Pontiff by one of the latter two methods, they remain legitimate means of papal selection. If a pope loses the papacy because of heresy, or if a pope-elect is prevented from assuming the papacy because of heresy, is he acclaimed pope after making a good confession if the College of Cardinals, the College of Bishops and the vast majority of the faithful continue to recognize him as pope?
“Sedevacantists forget that Catholicism, unlike Protestantism, is a realizable religion,” Vin explained. “Catholicism is a tangible religion. The sacraments are visible symbols of God’s grace. The Eucharist is Christ’s REAL presence. St. Peter and his successors are the visible head of Christ’s Church. Christ would not leave us orphans. If the Pope is no longer the Pope, the majority of Catholics must realize it.”
It is precisely because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending Masses celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X.
STATUS OF THE SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X
(Perhaps the problem is having ever considered the bishop of Rome to be infailable with regard to all matters of the faith.)
As Benedict XVI begins rooting out the homosexualist/libertines within the clergy, we're likely to see a lot more sedevacantists appear. They'll only pretend to come from the 'right', however...
No one has ever made the mistake of "having ever considered the bishop of Rome to be infailable with regard to all matters of the faith." The pope is only infallible on point of faith and morals in very specific situations. Infallibility of the pope is not open-ended.
Thank you, Joe, for this post. You never fail in sharing insightful commentary on articles of faith. May God richly reward and bless you!
Our unchangeable Catholic faith is made up of liturgy, doctrine, dogma and belief. The SSPX practices the liturgy of the Mass of Ages, 1962 Missal, and adheres to traditional beliefs associated with the pre-Vatican II church. Nothing in those beliefs is, in and of itself, schismatic, nor "unloyal" to Rome.
However, adherence to the Novus Ordo over a period of time as one slowly imbibes in the slippery slope of modernism, can indeed bring about a loss of our true and unchangable faith.
The above article has nothing to do with the "Status of St. Pius X" or "schismatic mentalities." One can't help but see your post #3 as anything other than an attempt to provoke a flamewar.
Infallibility, dear poster, is not for "all matters of the Faith".
Only people susceptible to the evils of modernism(as opposed to modernity)will be brought to sin. It is however a symptom of a sick hierarchy that so many such are brought to an occasion of sin BY THE MAIN VEHICLE FOR SALVATION.
This is because those men who ran the Western Catholic Church from the 60's on were short-sighted and perhaps themselves seduced by the "modern".
After several discussions on papal infailability in the apst here on FR the last I'd heard the vatican doesn't claim the pope is infailable in all things, simply in all things faith related.
If you have a refute to that interpretation of papal infailibility maybe you'd like to share it?
The Pope does not claim infallibility in all things faith related. Only when the issue is big enough to be "Ex Cathedra" does this apply. Even in the Faith, many things are open to debate, or are just minutia.
That is the most modern interpretation, I would put forth that for many centuries the pope was considered to be completely infailable, and latter it was considered to be limited to faith and then further refined to only when he speaks on certain subjects and says so.
I quite suspect that were you to try to convince someone in the 14th century the pope was incorrect on something faith related you would not be beleived and further you would probably suffer harsh consequences.
You'd be incorrect then. Here is what St. Thomas (1225-1274) says, for instance:
Dicendum, quod aliquid potest iudicari possibile secundum se consideratum, quod relatum ad aliquid extrinsecum, impossibile invenitur. Dico ergo, quod iudicium eorum qui praesunt Ecclesiae, potest errare in quibuslibet, si personae eorum tantum respiciantur. Si vero consideretur divina providentia, quae Ecclesiam suam spiritu sancto dirigit ut non erret, sicut ipse promisit, Ioann. X, quod spiritus adveniens doceret omnem veritatem, de necessariis scilicet ad salutem; certum est quod iudicium Ecclesiae universalis errare in his quae ad fidem pertinent, impossibile est. Unde magis est standum sententiae Papae, ad quem pertinet determinare de fide, quam in iudicio profert, quam quorumlibet sapientum hominum in Scripturis opinioni; cum Caiphas, quamvis nequam, tamen quia pontifex, legatur etiam inscius prophetasse, Ioann. XI, v. 51. In aliis vero sententiis quae ad particularia facta pertinent, ut cum agitur de possessionibus, vel de criminibus, vel de huiusmodi, possibile est iudicium Ecclesiae errare propter falsos testes.It must be said that something can be judged possible considered according to itself, which, having been related to something extrinsic, is found impossible. I say therefore that the judgment of those who rule over the Church can err in these things, if their persons alone are considered. But if Divine Providence is considered, which rules his Church by the holy Spirit so that it may not err, as he himself promised (John 16:13) that the coming spirit would teach all truth (that is, about things necessary for salvation), it is certain that it is impossible that the judgment of the universal Church err in these matters which pertain to faith. Wherefore greater is the standing of the sentence of the Pope, to whom it pertains to determine concerning the faith, which is given in judgment, than the opinion of any men learned in the Scriptures whosoever; since Caiphas, although worthless, is read also to have prophesied incisively since he was pontiff (John 11:51). But in other sentences which pertain to particular facts, as when it is decided about possessions or crimes or other things of this type, it is possible for the judgment of the Church to err because of false witnesses. (Quodlibet IX, q. 8 co.)
Well you've got me with regard to the fact that even early Catholics didn't buy the notion of papal infaillbility, though i still suspect that unless you were at least an extremely high ranking bishop or noble, questioning the pope would prove problematic during that time period.
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/infallible.html
That said, I think it's high time the Catholic church drop the notion that any man is infailable in any matters of faith.
The Historical Credibility of Hans Küng - Fr. Joseph Costanzo, S.J.
If you're interested in the truth about Liberius, Vigilius, and Honorius, you can consult the articles on them in the Catholic Encyclopedia, and also this excellent article from the American Catholic Quarterly Review. Suffice it to say here that papal infallibility was believed in from the earliest centuries of the Church, as can easily be seen from the letter of Pope St. Agatho to the Third Council of Constantinople, which was considered by the Council Fathers to be "divinely written as by the Chief of the Apostles".
Papal infailability was propaganda to explain why the Catholics were the best post schism. Until it's dropped there can be no healing of the schism.
Peter was both married, and failable. In fact many post schism Catholic traditions can only be considered correct by ignoring things Peter did or said.
The notion that anyone but Christ was infailable is heretical.
The notion that anyone but Christ was infailable is heretical.
I think I'll stick with Scripture on this one, sorry.
For we have not by following artificial fables made known to you the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ: but we were eyewitnesses of his greatness. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, this voice coming down to him from the excellent glory: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear ye him. And this voice, we heard brought from heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount. And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn and the day star arise in your hearts. Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost. (2 St. Peter 1:16-21)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.