Another very well written and well thought out article on the most repeated objections to the sede vacantist opinion; I thank you for taking the time and the effort to lay out a very detailed and complete response, which I will hope and pray will satisfy our most demanding and honest adversaries.
I would have bet you anything that Sean Johnson would never become a sede, yet he credited your work with his change of view. So keep up the good fight.
One of the things I appreciate about WM Review is the absence of pontificating. The presentation of research in the hopes of reaching properly Catholic conclusions seems to me nothing to complain about as an approach. Generally speaking in this long interregnum the problem is an ‘audience’ that is longing for a Pontiff and is content to ‘find’ one in the likes of Taylor Marshall or Dr K, or Prevost, which is the opposite of Catholic.
Based on my own personal interactions with those in the R&R camp, it seems as if they have a bit of willful blindness, a sort of self-imposed Jedi mind trick thing going on whenever an answer is given to their questions. It may be hidden under the veil of "it is above my pay grade" excuse. I have often noted how smart so many of my friends are, yet they lose their scruples when it comes to this topic, as if they just can't get it. The bar is set so high for an answer that no man can satisfy it. The willful blindness becomes their Linus blanket, thus they continue as is without the changes that will come if they are finally convinced.
Question: In your opinion, can one attend an SSPX chapel and practice the Catholic Faith as best they know how while still holding the opinion that the Pope and most of the current hierarchy are in heresy, or are heretics, and refuse to follow along with their novelties and errors?
Thank you for your response... I will read and study this... and beg Our Lord and Savior to be merciful to those who are trying their best in this time of crisis.
The reply to your question is yes. You just have to be careful not to openly state or promote sedevacantism in an SSPX chapel, because unfortunately they might kick you out (if you are a "vocal" SV). You are going there for the life-giving sacraments, not because that particular society of trad priests is without errors. If we were to limit ourselves just to those, I doubt most of us would find any acceptable places (whether sedevacantist or otherwise). This is a time without the Principle of Unity (i.e., the Pope) so it is not surprising that errors abound everywhere.
In addition to the article Mr. Wright recommended, I would also recommend this article by Mr. John Lane, arguably one of the greatest lay experts in theology today, as well as observations from another important expert, Mr. John Daly:
The novely and error that it is a sin or a sacrilege to assist at a Mass where the priest prays for a false pope comes from the sedeprivationist clergy and is exemplified by the the so called "Roman Catholic Institute" and its scandalous refusal of communion to the faithful who attend an "una cum" Mass, as if they were public sinners for not adhering to the opinion of that society. This is a truly grave crime not just against the faithful but against the Church as well. It is certain to receive a strong condemnation from Authority after the Restoration. Therefore, I feel obliged in charity to caution you as my sister in Christ, to avoid the articles that were recommended by Vadehezut Alháquime, because I see that he is promoting this error here.
Also, you need not worry about receiving the sacraments from trad priests who were ordained by bishops who were consecrated without a papal mandate (which is impossible to obtain today) because the Church permits us in Canon 2261 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law to receive the sacraments even from those excommunicated:
Canon 2261:
§ 2. The faithful, with due regard for the prescription of § 3, can for any just cause seek the Sacraments and Sacramentals from one excommunicated, especially if other ministers are lacking, and then the one who is excommunicate and approached can administer these and is under no obligation of inquiring the reasons from the one requesting.
§ 3. But from a banned excommunicate and from others excommunicated after a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has come, only the faithful in danger of death can ask for sacramental absolution according to the norm of Canons 882 and 2252 and even, if other ministers are lacking, other Sacraments and Sacramentals.
The Church loves her children so much that, when we are in need and have no recourse to lawful ministers, she will allow even excommunicated priests and bishops, who are outside the Church, to provide the sacraments that her children need, and in danger of death (which theologians say applies also if the faithful are not expected to ever again have access to a lawful minister), she permits it, even for sacramentals, even of an excommunicate whom we are otherwise obliged to avoid.
Sedeprivationism is characterized by an unhealthy scrupulosity in addressing the controversies of the Crisis and I would advise avoiding it for your own spiritual well-being.
I have absolutely no problem with the quote. He doesn't say anything that I don't already believe or accept. But he doesn't say what you want him to say at all. In fact, he says what we say - that the mention of the Pope in the Canon is a "commemoration [in other words, prayer]... prayers made for him during the Sacrifice."
Of course praying for the Pope during the Mass is a sign of communion with him as Pope (and he is praying FOR the Pope, and not ONE WITH the Pope - if you believe otherwise, then you don't understand Latin). If the priest didn't think N. was Pope, he wouldn't be praying for "our Pope N.", but if he were mistaken as to who the Pope was and said another name in error, the Mass would not become schismatic nor sacrilegious. In fact, it would not affect the Mass at all, and it wouldn't affect him either, because his intention was always to submit to the legitimate Successor of St. Peter, and not to a false pope. Accusing either him or the Mass he celebrated of schism and sacrilege for an error of fact is gravely scandalous.
Sedevacantism doesn't "read the internal forum". That is what sedeprivationism does by judging the internal personal intention of the Pope (since there is no such thing as the objective intention of accepting an office, merely the internal personal intention, which can be manifested externally), and "basing one's entire life of grace upon that judgment", as you said. Since the Conciliar pretenders used words and actions that signify acceptance (such as signing an official decree or verbally stating consent), since they exercised the rights and duties of the office, such as taking possession, issuing orders, or dressing in the vestments of the office, this constitutes an external manifestation of their internal personal intention to accept the office of Pope. Not performing the duties of the office as they should simply means they are bad popes, it doesn't mean that they never intended to accept the office. Such an absurdity would mean that if someone is doing a terrible job as the head of a society or a business, one would have to automatically conclude that he never really intended to be the head.
Sedevacantism first recognizes that the words and acts of the Conciliar pretenders cannot come from a Roman Pontiff (because of the Indefectibility of the Church and of the Apostolic See), and only then does it go about using the Church's standards of judging whether that individual person is consciously rejecting the infallible doctrines of the Magisterium. It doesn't even have to arrive at any conclusion in the latter, because just knowing that those things cannot come from the Roman Pontiff or from the Church is sufficient to conclude with certainty that these men could not have been popes.
P.S. Let me fix your analogy. What you (and those who adhere to NUC) are arguing is actually this: Person A kills person B by accident. Is that *murder*? Of course it is, somebody died. Does that make person A murderer? No.
You are arguing that a murder (schism) has been committed, even if there is no murderer. Except killing someone accidentally is not murder, just as commemorating a false pope unintentionally is no schism, in any way. If you think it is, you must rewrite the opinions of the theologians and canonists who say that there was no real schism during the Western Schism, and that there is no schism at all when someone mistakenly refuses to recognize a real Pope for solidly founded reasons (which by extension also means that there is no schism when someone mistakenly recognizes a false Pope for solidly founded reasons).
In short, you are claiming that a crime is committed without there being a criminal, a notion which is against the laws of the Church (and of secular law as well), and of justice.
You wrote: "I'm not promoting any error. I believe that Masses where a non-Pope is named in the Te Igitur are 'objectively stained with the crime of sacrilege and the crime of capital schism' - Fr. Guérard des Lauriers."
That is the error, and it is scandalous because it means that there was no Mass acceptable to God for all the years between the election of Paul VI and the first NUC Mass, and because a priest's error of fact about who is and is not pope is being called "sacrilege" and "schism". This claim is moreover a complete novelty, which can offer no magisterial teaching, no theologian, no historical testimony which says such a thing (but sedeprivationism is founded on a complete novelty, so that is no surprise). There is historical precedent for such a situation where a non-Pope is named in the Canon - the Western Schism, and yet, despite all kinds of invective thrown about at the time, even in such a time nobody had the temerity of accusing the Clean Oblation of being a sacrilege.
I strongly recommend you read the articles I linked to above, and the one Mr. Wright recommended.
You need to learn the difference between a lie and an error of fact. It is the difference between a suicide and an accidental fall resulting in death.
You also need to learn the difference between mistakenly adhering to someone as the Pope vs. intentionally adhering to someone you are aware is not the Pope. It is the difference between an SSPX priest praying for Leo XIV in the Te igitur vs. a CMRI priest praying for Leo XIV in the Te igitur.
You wrote: "But I'd prefer to die a martyr's death before saying the words 'una cum famulo tuo Papa Nostro Leone'".
If you were a priest and *you* said those words, since you know he is not the Pope, that would be the sin of schism, but if a priest who thinks that Prevost is the Pope intentionally *doesn't* say those words, then it is he who would commit the sin of schism, because he failed to commemorate the person he recognizes to be the Roman Pontiff. It would be a sin for him, even though Prevost is not the Pope.
Thank you very much for this information! It is an all very helpful. I can see that this issue is controversial and needs to be studied and prayed about. I don't ever want to be without confession and the Eucharist!
This makes a lot of sense to me, especially considering the enormous amount of confusion and varying opinions on this topic. I really don't think God would prefer us to go without sacraments because our priest is trying to stay Roman Catholic and mention the pope even if he is a false pope. IDK, this is a lot for most people to figure out. Lord have Mercy on us please!
Comparing the Mass said by priests who are faithful Catholics to the liturgy and venues of the Eastern schismatics illustrates precisely what sedeprivationism is and why it is dangerous.
When you hear someone call a Catholic Mass a "sacrilege" and "schism", comparing it with the Mass of non-Catholic sects, you know that that is crossing the line from adhering to Tradition into the murky waters of sectarianism.
When faced with the choice (and I've had the choice before), I personally would rather go to an SSPX Mass or an Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy than to an RCI or any other sedeprivationist venue, not just because of the errors (errors are present almost everywhere), but because of the spirit pervading that system of errors. I believe enough evidence has been provided by both sides to allow everyone to judge for themselves the nature of that spirit.
I'm not sure it's fair to link this with the Cassiciacum Thesis. It doesn't seem to have much to do with the body of the Thesis, it's an adjunct, and been enthusiastically adopted by those who reject the Thesis too.
It is an adjunct, but the idea comes from Bp. des Lauriers and he was the one who developed it, basing it on the conclusions of his thesis (he also said that the NUC was the reason why he decided to have himself consecrated and to consecrate others). It was later spread further by a sedeprivationist (Bp. Sanborn) and a sedevacantist (Fr. Cekada, who didn't originally hold that error, but adopted it later).
However, my comment about sectarianism (I am not the first to call it that) and about a dangerous spirit applies also to sedevacantist Mass centers where that error is professed (that the "Una cum" Mass is a crime, a sacrilege, a mortal sin, capital schism, that is doesn't confer grace, that it is an insult to God, that it is equivalent to idolatry, and other scandalous insults of the Most Holy Sacrifice), so that I would personally rather attend Mass at an SSPX or an Eastern Catholic venue than, for example, at SGG.
By going to venues which promote this error, Catholics are putting themselves and their families in danger of gradually adopting it and later potentially depriving themselves of much needed sacraments.
Reading your quotes here from your previous treatments of "Where is the Church?" I was impressed again that you provide the most detailed framework for dealing with the prophesied "eclipse of the Church," when the hierarchy is obscured, as you put it. You show how to apply the four marks to the faithful remnant at a time when the true hierarchy becomes very hard to discern by definition. I don't claim to follow every argument of "Zero Marks" in detail, but I applaud your doing the work to set it forth so meticulously.
Yes, life is full of disappointments. The major one with the sedevacantist position is, IMHO, the following: "traditional bishops agree that they are ‘merely sacramental bishops’, or bishops in an auxiliary sense" i.e. sedevacantism is building very extensive speculative concepts with taking no steps that could bring closer to the solution of the crisis. In other words: sedevacantism, in most its cases, is an almost perfect theoretical model/key to petrifying the crisis.
On the other hand - the Catholic approach would be: if there is really no Pope for years, one should be elected ASAP.
"The Catholic approach is that nobody takes authority upon himself but receives it from one who already possesses it"
---
A curious idea but contrafactual as the Vicar of Christ is not chosen by his predecessor "vivente rege", but elected after his predecessor death. So he receives the authority from the Church not from his equal/superior. There is nothing more anti-Catholic than "dead end" "no ordinary jurisdiction forever" sedes.
If "The election is only a designation of a candidate" what is the problem to make one? The election should be always possible unless you are questioning the status Ecclesiae and Christ's promises.
"None of the bishops that will participate in such a council has jurisdiction not even in partibus which is absolutely necessary for having a deliberative vote "
---
But you say that "The election is only a designation of a candidate" i.e. the election/designation act is not an act of jurisdiction because ultimately Christ grants jurisdiction.
Moreover, for example in Constance Martin V was elected by the representatives of nations and "cardinals" created by three different "popes" (i.e. in fact one pope and two anti-popes though till today we cannot be sure who was the pope - up to the end of 19th century the most common version was John XXIII, starting from 20th century Gregory XII is more popular)
"Furthermore, I believe that none of the traditionalist bishops alive today (IF validly consecrated) is a Catholic bishop to begin with"
---
People have strange beliefs today.
"if consecration of this kind (without Apostolic mandate) is being done contrary to all right and law, and by this crime the unity of the Church is being seriously attacked, an excommunication reserved specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See has been established which is automatically incurred by the consecrator and by anyone who has received consecration irresponsibly conferred"
---
1. Ad Apostolorum Principis refers to the given case: communist schismatic bishops in China. The passage you quoted is just a reference (see footnotes ro AAP) to Decree of Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, April 9, 1951. It is not teaching (as bishops consecrations without the papal mandate were not sanctioned with excommunication ipso facto in the whole Church history before 1951 and communist bishops case in China) but positive canon law.
In fact in original CIC 1917 Canon 2370 stipulated a penalty of suspension for such a delict "A Bishop consecrating another Bishop, and the assistant Bishops or, in the place of Bishops, priests, and those who receive consecration without an apostolic mandate against the prescription of Canon 953 are by the law suspended until the Apostolic See dispenses them".
2. In the canon law there are two types of provisions regulating crimes/delicts i.e. particular provisions stipulating types of crimes/delicts (like canon referring directly to the delict of consecrations without papal mandate) but there are also general rules/framework regarding culpability/imputability (e.g. canon 2205 in CIC 1917 and Canons 1323-24 in CIC 1983 SSPX is referring to).
Thus, if consecration is done and those general rules apply you cannot say that a given, concrete delict " is being done contrary to all right and law" and (additional condition) "by this crime the unity of the Church is being seriously attacked".
By the way - consecration without the papal mandate is not per se a crime against the unity of the Church as in CIC 1917 the delict was placed in Title "On delicts in the administration or the reception of orders and the other
Sacraments" (not the title "the delicts against the faith and unity of the Church") - similarly in CIC of JPII.
VRS, you said: "if there is really no Pope for years, one should be elected ASAP."
One should be realistic. How do you think an election can happen today, when all the electors believe that Prevost is the Pope? Not just the pseudocardinals but all the bishops of the world who possess ordinary jurisdiction or a title. Traditionalist bishops have no jurisdiction or authority in the Church, so saying that they can elect the Pope is the same as saying that the laity can do it (which reminds me of "Pope Michael").
"Not just the pseudocardinals but all the bishops of the world who possess ordinary jurisdiction or a title. "
---
If they are "pseudocardinals" (as sedevacantists claim) then they have no right to take part into the election.
The logical conclusion is: the Pope (Bishop of Rome) must be elected using another way/custom - yes perhaps, if necessary, coming back to the ancient ones when the clergy and laity of Rome elected one/ not: oh, no we are stuck with non-popes for ever. Bellarmine suggested in such a situation an imperfect council.
But claiming that there has been no Pope since 1958 (or 1964/or 1965 - depending on the variant) plus there are no cardinals, and doing nothing to elect one is not a Catholic stance.
As for the jurisdiction it is a peculiar thing and in case of extraordinary situations is solved by non-standard measures). Let me remind, for example, of the "vicar capitular" institution for example - who receives ordinary jurisdiction (!) from not the Pope or bishop but from the cathedral chapter (cf. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15401c.htm).
Or about the more famous Council of Constance that, to end the great western schism, elected Martin V in a non-standard proceedings.
Pseudocardinals or not, as bishops they have a right to take part in the election, which devolves to all the bishops if there are no cardinals, unless each one of those bishops is proven to be a public heretic (which I don't believe to be possible, nor has it been attemped).
"... and doing nothing to elect one is not a Catholic stance."
It is if you are not a valid elector, and the valid electors all believe that the See is not vacant.
"Let me remind, for example, of the "vicar capitular" institution... who receives ordinary jurisdiction (!) from not the Pope or bishop but from the cathedral chapter."
The cathedral chapter are the valid electors in a diocese, just like the College of Cardinals for the Roman Pontiff (and before them, the Roman clergy). They do have jurisdiction granted by the Pope (there is no jurisdiction in the Church unless received from the Pope, explicitly or implicitly), the Pope who established that diocese and gave them those rights of election, just like the Cardinals received their right from a previous pope. Authority is transmitted canonically, it doesn't come from thin air.
"Or about the more famous Council of Constance that, to end the great western schism, elected Martin V in a non-standard proceedings."
Yes, but they had the morally universal support of the Episcopate, which is not the case today.
Regardless of how difficult it is to wait for God to resurrect the Church after her painful Passion, there is no other way. Our Lady or St. John didn't try to raise Christ, and we can't raise the Mystical Body of Christ from its apparent (but not actual) death and interment.
Gaspers will not correct the record here. His mission was accomplished, which is to strain out the gnats of Sedevacantists, while swallowing the big gay camels of the Synodal sect, in order to keep his juridical line intact. It is either lack of intelligence or lack of honesty that keeps Matt from seenig how laughable it is for Tucho, Leo, or Cupich to 'restore heretics to the Church'.
Somewhat off topic, but relevant to the subject of an obscured hierarchy: Cardinal Newman once started quite a controversy with a series of articles later compiled in a book called “On consulting the faithful” in which he argued (rightly, in my opinion) that during the Arian crisis there was a temporary suspense of the teaching Church, and that, some notable exceptions aside, the orthodox faith was largely preserved and transmitted not by the hierarchy, but by the faithful (the vast majority of bishops having been swept away by heresy).
There are certainly parallels regarding obscurity and the hierarchy, as well as the mode of transmission of the faith, today.
In fact, Newman was accused of heresy for that statement, saying that the functions of the Teaching Church were suspended, and that the body of bishops failed in the confession of the faith. It is a heretical statement (incompatible with the Divine Constitution, and the Indefectibility of the Church), and also not factual, since even in those times there were faithful bishops who maintained the orthodox confession.
Your failure to communicate effectively is not the fault of your audience. You should be able to answer questions in a clear and concise manner (bottom line up front) and then expound if needed. Remember "Napoleon's corporal." I also lost track of the number of times you had to stop yourself from going off on tangents. I appreciate the depth of your knowledge but your ability to convey it in a podcast format needs work.
On the contrary, if you don't like it, then no one is obliging you to listen to it. In any case, this piece wasn't responding to questions from listeners but to three particular individuals with objections to content rather than delivery.
S.D.
Another very well written and well thought out article on the most repeated objections to the sede vacantist opinion; I thank you for taking the time and the effort to lay out a very detailed and complete response, which I will hope and pray will satisfy our most demanding and honest adversaries.
Thank you Michael. I haven’t got much hope of that, but if it helps someone then it is worth it.
No one is blinder than he who is paid not to see.
I would have bet you anything that Sean Johnson would never become a sede, yet he credited your work with his change of view. So keep up the good fight.
You do a good job, SD. I pray your reward is greater in the next life, where there are no disappointments. :-) Pax et bonum +
Thank you Michael! I appreciate it a lot!
One of the things I appreciate about WM Review is the absence of pontificating. The presentation of research in the hopes of reaching properly Catholic conclusions seems to me nothing to complain about as an approach. Generally speaking in this long interregnum the problem is an ‘audience’ that is longing for a Pontiff and is content to ‘find’ one in the likes of Taylor Marshall or Dr K, or Prevost, which is the opposite of Catholic.
Thanks Sonia, that is very kind.
Based on my own personal interactions with those in the R&R camp, it seems as if they have a bit of willful blindness, a sort of self-imposed Jedi mind trick thing going on whenever an answer is given to their questions. It may be hidden under the veil of "it is above my pay grade" excuse. I have often noted how smart so many of my friends are, yet they lose their scruples when it comes to this topic, as if they just can't get it. The bar is set so high for an answer that no man can satisfy it. The willful blindness becomes their Linus blanket, thus they continue as is without the changes that will come if they are finally convinced.
Question: In your opinion, can one attend an SSPX chapel and practice the Catholic Faith as best they know how while still holding the opinion that the Pope and most of the current hierarchy are in heresy, or are heretics, and refuse to follow along with their novelties and errors?
Hi Lisa, this might help you work through that question:
https://www.wmreview.org/p/hudson-inanem-fallaciam
Thank you for your response... I will read and study this... and beg Our Lord and Savior to be merciful to those who are trying their best in this time of crisis.
Thank you for this information which I will study as soon as I can.
Yes? No? Maybe?
Lisa,
The reply to your question is yes. You just have to be careful not to openly state or promote sedevacantism in an SSPX chapel, because unfortunately they might kick you out (if you are a "vocal" SV). You are going there for the life-giving sacraments, not because that particular society of trad priests is without errors. If we were to limit ourselves just to those, I doubt most of us would find any acceptable places (whether sedevacantist or otherwise). This is a time without the Principle of Unity (i.e., the Pope) so it is not surprising that errors abound everywhere.
In addition to the article Mr. Wright recommended, I would also recommend this article by Mr. John Lane, arguably one of the greatest lay experts in theology today, as well as observations from another important expert, Mr. John Daly:
https://tradcath.proboards.com/thread/744/sedevacantism-una-church-lane
https://www.wmreview.org/p/letter-daly
https://tradcath.proboards.com/thread/2154/response-una-controversy-daly-2006
The novely and error that it is a sin or a sacrilege to assist at a Mass where the priest prays for a false pope comes from the sedeprivationist clergy and is exemplified by the the so called "Roman Catholic Institute" and its scandalous refusal of communion to the faithful who attend an "una cum" Mass, as if they were public sinners for not adhering to the opinion of that society. This is a truly grave crime not just against the faithful but against the Church as well. It is certain to receive a strong condemnation from Authority after the Restoration. Therefore, I feel obliged in charity to caution you as my sister in Christ, to avoid the articles that were recommended by Vadehezut Alháquime, because I see that he is promoting this error here.
Also, you need not worry about receiving the sacraments from trad priests who were ordained by bishops who were consecrated without a papal mandate (which is impossible to obtain today) because the Church permits us in Canon 2261 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law to receive the sacraments even from those excommunicated:
Canon 2261:
§ 2. The faithful, with due regard for the prescription of § 3, can for any just cause seek the Sacraments and Sacramentals from one excommunicated, especially if other ministers are lacking, and then the one who is excommunicate and approached can administer these and is under no obligation of inquiring the reasons from the one requesting.
§ 3. But from a banned excommunicate and from others excommunicated after a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has come, only the faithful in danger of death can ask for sacramental absolution according to the norm of Canons 882 and 2252 and even, if other ministers are lacking, other Sacraments and Sacramentals.
The Church loves her children so much that, when we are in need and have no recourse to lawful ministers, she will allow even excommunicated priests and bishops, who are outside the Church, to provide the sacraments that her children need, and in danger of death (which theologians say applies also if the faithful are not expected to ever again have access to a lawful minister), she permits it, even for sacramentals, even of an excommunicate whom we are otherwise obliged to avoid.
Sedeprivationism is characterized by an unhealthy scrupulosity in addressing the controversies of the Crisis and I would advise avoiding it for your own spiritual well-being.
I have absolutely no problem with the quote. He doesn't say anything that I don't already believe or accept. But he doesn't say what you want him to say at all. In fact, he says what we say - that the mention of the Pope in the Canon is a "commemoration [in other words, prayer]... prayers made for him during the Sacrifice."
Of course praying for the Pope during the Mass is a sign of communion with him as Pope (and he is praying FOR the Pope, and not ONE WITH the Pope - if you believe otherwise, then you don't understand Latin). If the priest didn't think N. was Pope, he wouldn't be praying for "our Pope N.", but if he were mistaken as to who the Pope was and said another name in error, the Mass would not become schismatic nor sacrilegious. In fact, it would not affect the Mass at all, and it wouldn't affect him either, because his intention was always to submit to the legitimate Successor of St. Peter, and not to a false pope. Accusing either him or the Mass he celebrated of schism and sacrilege for an error of fact is gravely scandalous.
Sedevacantism doesn't "read the internal forum". That is what sedeprivationism does by judging the internal personal intention of the Pope (since there is no such thing as the objective intention of accepting an office, merely the internal personal intention, which can be manifested externally), and "basing one's entire life of grace upon that judgment", as you said. Since the Conciliar pretenders used words and actions that signify acceptance (such as signing an official decree or verbally stating consent), since they exercised the rights and duties of the office, such as taking possession, issuing orders, or dressing in the vestments of the office, this constitutes an external manifestation of their internal personal intention to accept the office of Pope. Not performing the duties of the office as they should simply means they are bad popes, it doesn't mean that they never intended to accept the office. Such an absurdity would mean that if someone is doing a terrible job as the head of a society or a business, one would have to automatically conclude that he never really intended to be the head.
Sedevacantism first recognizes that the words and acts of the Conciliar pretenders cannot come from a Roman Pontiff (because of the Indefectibility of the Church and of the Apostolic See), and only then does it go about using the Church's standards of judging whether that individual person is consciously rejecting the infallible doctrines of the Magisterium. It doesn't even have to arrive at any conclusion in the latter, because just knowing that those things cannot come from the Roman Pontiff or from the Church is sufficient to conclude with certainty that these men could not have been popes.
P.S. Let me fix your analogy. What you (and those who adhere to NUC) are arguing is actually this: Person A kills person B by accident. Is that *murder*? Of course it is, somebody died. Does that make person A murderer? No.
You are arguing that a murder (schism) has been committed, even if there is no murderer. Except killing someone accidentally is not murder, just as commemorating a false pope unintentionally is no schism, in any way. If you think it is, you must rewrite the opinions of the theologians and canonists who say that there was no real schism during the Western Schism, and that there is no schism at all when someone mistakenly refuses to recognize a real Pope for solidly founded reasons (which by extension also means that there is no schism when someone mistakenly recognizes a false Pope for solidly founded reasons).
In short, you are claiming that a crime is committed without there being a criminal, a notion which is against the laws of the Church (and of secular law as well), and of justice.
You wrote: "I'm not promoting any error. I believe that Masses where a non-Pope is named in the Te Igitur are 'objectively stained with the crime of sacrilege and the crime of capital schism' - Fr. Guérard des Lauriers."
That is the error, and it is scandalous because it means that there was no Mass acceptable to God for all the years between the election of Paul VI and the first NUC Mass, and because a priest's error of fact about who is and is not pope is being called "sacrilege" and "schism". This claim is moreover a complete novelty, which can offer no magisterial teaching, no theologian, no historical testimony which says such a thing (but sedeprivationism is founded on a complete novelty, so that is no surprise). There is historical precedent for such a situation where a non-Pope is named in the Canon - the Western Schism, and yet, despite all kinds of invective thrown about at the time, even in such a time nobody had the temerity of accusing the Clean Oblation of being a sacrilege.
I strongly recommend you read the articles I linked to above, and the one Mr. Wright recommended.
You need to learn the difference between a lie and an error of fact. It is the difference between a suicide and an accidental fall resulting in death.
You also need to learn the difference between mistakenly adhering to someone as the Pope vs. intentionally adhering to someone you are aware is not the Pope. It is the difference between an SSPX priest praying for Leo XIV in the Te igitur vs. a CMRI priest praying for Leo XIV in the Te igitur.
You wrote: "But I'd prefer to die a martyr's death before saying the words 'una cum famulo tuo Papa Nostro Leone'".
If you were a priest and *you* said those words, since you know he is not the Pope, that would be the sin of schism, but if a priest who thinks that Prevost is the Pope intentionally *doesn't* say those words, then it is he who would commit the sin of schism, because he failed to commemorate the person he recognizes to be the Roman Pontiff. It would be a sin for him, even though Prevost is not the Pope.
Thank you very much for this information! It is an all very helpful. I can see that this issue is controversial and needs to be studied and prayed about. I don't ever want to be without confession and the Eucharist!
This makes a lot of sense to me, especially considering the enormous amount of confusion and varying opinions on this topic. I really don't think God would prefer us to go without sacraments because our priest is trying to stay Roman Catholic and mention the pope even if he is a false pope. IDK, this is a lot for most people to figure out. Lord have Mercy on us please!
Comparing the Mass said by priests who are faithful Catholics to the liturgy and venues of the Eastern schismatics illustrates precisely what sedeprivationism is and why it is dangerous.
When you hear someone call a Catholic Mass a "sacrilege" and "schism", comparing it with the Mass of non-Catholic sects, you know that that is crossing the line from adhering to Tradition into the murky waters of sectarianism.
When faced with the choice (and I've had the choice before), I personally would rather go to an SSPX Mass or an Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy than to an RCI or any other sedeprivationist venue, not just because of the errors (errors are present almost everywhere), but because of the spirit pervading that system of errors. I believe enough evidence has been provided by both sides to allow everyone to judge for themselves the nature of that spirit.
I'm not sure it's fair to link this with the Cassiciacum Thesis. It doesn't seem to have much to do with the body of the Thesis, it's an adjunct, and been enthusiastically adopted by those who reject the Thesis too.
It is an adjunct, but the idea comes from Bp. des Lauriers and he was the one who developed it, basing it on the conclusions of his thesis (he also said that the NUC was the reason why he decided to have himself consecrated and to consecrate others). It was later spread further by a sedeprivationist (Bp. Sanborn) and a sedevacantist (Fr. Cekada, who didn't originally hold that error, but adopted it later).
However, my comment about sectarianism (I am not the first to call it that) and about a dangerous spirit applies also to sedevacantist Mass centers where that error is professed (that the "Una cum" Mass is a crime, a sacrilege, a mortal sin, capital schism, that is doesn't confer grace, that it is an insult to God, that it is equivalent to idolatry, and other scandalous insults of the Most Holy Sacrifice), so that I would personally rather attend Mass at an SSPX or an Eastern Catholic venue than, for example, at SGG.
By going to venues which promote this error, Catholics are putting themselves and their families in danger of gradually adopting it and later potentially depriving themselves of much needed sacraments.
Reading your quotes here from your previous treatments of "Where is the Church?" I was impressed again that you provide the most detailed framework for dealing with the prophesied "eclipse of the Church," when the hierarchy is obscured, as you put it. You show how to apply the four marks to the faithful remnant at a time when the true hierarchy becomes very hard to discern by definition. I don't claim to follow every argument of "Zero Marks" in detail, but I applaud your doing the work to set it forth so meticulously.
Thank you!
Yes, life is full of disappointments. The major one with the sedevacantist position is, IMHO, the following: "traditional bishops agree that they are ‘merely sacramental bishops’, or bishops in an auxiliary sense" i.e. sedevacantism is building very extensive speculative concepts with taking no steps that could bring closer to the solution of the crisis. In other words: sedevacantism, in most its cases, is an almost perfect theoretical model/key to petrifying the crisis.
On the other hand - the Catholic approach would be: if there is really no Pope for years, one should be elected ASAP.
"The Catholic approach is that nobody takes authority upon himself but receives it from one who already possesses it"
---
A curious idea but contrafactual as the Vicar of Christ is not chosen by his predecessor "vivente rege", but elected after his predecessor death. So he receives the authority from the Church not from his equal/superior. There is nothing more anti-Catholic than "dead end" "no ordinary jurisdiction forever" sedes.
If "The election is only a designation of a candidate" what is the problem to make one? The election should be always possible unless you are questioning the status Ecclesiae and Christ's promises.
"None of the bishops that will participate in such a council has jurisdiction not even in partibus which is absolutely necessary for having a deliberative vote "
---
But you say that "The election is only a designation of a candidate" i.e. the election/designation act is not an act of jurisdiction because ultimately Christ grants jurisdiction.
Moreover, for example in Constance Martin V was elected by the representatives of nations and "cardinals" created by three different "popes" (i.e. in fact one pope and two anti-popes though till today we cannot be sure who was the pope - up to the end of 19th century the most common version was John XXIII, starting from 20th century Gregory XII is more popular)
"Furthermore, I believe that none of the traditionalist bishops alive today (IF validly consecrated) is a Catholic bishop to begin with"
---
People have strange beliefs today.
"if consecration of this kind (without Apostolic mandate) is being done contrary to all right and law, and by this crime the unity of the Church is being seriously attacked, an excommunication reserved specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See has been established which is automatically incurred by the consecrator and by anyone who has received consecration irresponsibly conferred"
---
1. Ad Apostolorum Principis refers to the given case: communist schismatic bishops in China. The passage you quoted is just a reference (see footnotes ro AAP) to Decree of Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, April 9, 1951. It is not teaching (as bishops consecrations without the papal mandate were not sanctioned with excommunication ipso facto in the whole Church history before 1951 and communist bishops case in China) but positive canon law.
In fact in original CIC 1917 Canon 2370 stipulated a penalty of suspension for such a delict "A Bishop consecrating another Bishop, and the assistant Bishops or, in the place of Bishops, priests, and those who receive consecration without an apostolic mandate against the prescription of Canon 953 are by the law suspended until the Apostolic See dispenses them".
2. In the canon law there are two types of provisions regulating crimes/delicts i.e. particular provisions stipulating types of crimes/delicts (like canon referring directly to the delict of consecrations without papal mandate) but there are also general rules/framework regarding culpability/imputability (e.g. canon 2205 in CIC 1917 and Canons 1323-24 in CIC 1983 SSPX is referring to).
Thus, if consecration is done and those general rules apply you cannot say that a given, concrete delict " is being done contrary to all right and law" and (additional condition) "by this crime the unity of the Church is being seriously attacked".
By the way - consecration without the papal mandate is not per se a crime against the unity of the Church as in CIC 1917 the delict was placed in Title "On delicts in the administration or the reception of orders and the other
Sacraments" (not the title "the delicts against the faith and unity of the Church") - similarly in CIC of JPII.
VRS, you said: "if there is really no Pope for years, one should be elected ASAP."
One should be realistic. How do you think an election can happen today, when all the electors believe that Prevost is the Pope? Not just the pseudocardinals but all the bishops of the world who possess ordinary jurisdiction or a title. Traditionalist bishops have no jurisdiction or authority in the Church, so saying that they can elect the Pope is the same as saying that the laity can do it (which reminds me of "Pope Michael").
"Not just the pseudocardinals but all the bishops of the world who possess ordinary jurisdiction or a title. "
---
If they are "pseudocardinals" (as sedevacantists claim) then they have no right to take part into the election.
The logical conclusion is: the Pope (Bishop of Rome) must be elected using another way/custom - yes perhaps, if necessary, coming back to the ancient ones when the clergy and laity of Rome elected one/ not: oh, no we are stuck with non-popes for ever. Bellarmine suggested in such a situation an imperfect council.
But claiming that there has been no Pope since 1958 (or 1964/or 1965 - depending on the variant) plus there are no cardinals, and doing nothing to elect one is not a Catholic stance.
As for the jurisdiction it is a peculiar thing and in case of extraordinary situations is solved by non-standard measures). Let me remind, for example, of the "vicar capitular" institution for example - who receives ordinary jurisdiction (!) from not the Pope or bishop but from the cathedral chapter (cf. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15401c.htm).
Or about the more famous Council of Constance that, to end the great western schism, elected Martin V in a non-standard proceedings.
Pseudocardinals or not, as bishops they have a right to take part in the election, which devolves to all the bishops if there are no cardinals, unless each one of those bishops is proven to be a public heretic (which I don't believe to be possible, nor has it been attemped).
"... and doing nothing to elect one is not a Catholic stance."
It is if you are not a valid elector, and the valid electors all believe that the See is not vacant.
"Let me remind, for example, of the "vicar capitular" institution... who receives ordinary jurisdiction (!) from not the Pope or bishop but from the cathedral chapter."
The cathedral chapter are the valid electors in a diocese, just like the College of Cardinals for the Roman Pontiff (and before them, the Roman clergy). They do have jurisdiction granted by the Pope (there is no jurisdiction in the Church unless received from the Pope, explicitly or implicitly), the Pope who established that diocese and gave them those rights of election, just like the Cardinals received their right from a previous pope. Authority is transmitted canonically, it doesn't come from thin air.
"Or about the more famous Council of Constance that, to end the great western schism, elected Martin V in a non-standard proceedings."
Yes, but they had the morally universal support of the Episcopate, which is not the case today.
Regardless of how difficult it is to wait for God to resurrect the Church after her painful Passion, there is no other way. Our Lady or St. John didn't try to raise Christ, and we can't raise the Mystical Body of Christ from its apparent (but not actual) death and interment.
Gaspers will not correct the record here. His mission was accomplished, which is to strain out the gnats of Sedevacantists, while swallowing the big gay camels of the Synodal sect, in order to keep his juridical line intact. It is either lack of intelligence or lack of honesty that keeps Matt from seenig how laughable it is for Tucho, Leo, or Cupich to 'restore heretics to the Church'.
You know you have a great article when it has both humor and substance. Great article.
Somewhat off topic, but relevant to the subject of an obscured hierarchy: Cardinal Newman once started quite a controversy with a series of articles later compiled in a book called “On consulting the faithful” in which he argued (rightly, in my opinion) that during the Arian crisis there was a temporary suspense of the teaching Church, and that, some notable exceptions aside, the orthodox faith was largely preserved and transmitted not by the hierarchy, but by the faithful (the vast majority of bishops having been swept away by heresy).
There are certainly parallels regarding obscurity and the hierarchy, as well as the mode of transmission of the faith, today.
In fact, Newman was accused of heresy for that statement, saying that the functions of the Teaching Church were suspended, and that the body of bishops failed in the confession of the faith. It is a heretical statement (incompatible with the Divine Constitution, and the Indefectibility of the Church), and also not factual, since even in those times there were faithful bishops who maintained the orthodox confession.
See here, at the top: https://tradcath.proboards.com/thread/2500/newman-rambler-affair
Well I think the narrative with this article is a little more complext than it is sometimes presented.
See the Franzelin section here for example.
https://www.wmreview.org/p/did-four-cardinals-accuse-newman
Thank you, I didn't know about that.
Card. Franzelin corrected then Fr. Newman's statements publicly, but not by name out of respect ("the anonymous author").
Your failure to communicate effectively is not the fault of your audience. You should be able to answer questions in a clear and concise manner (bottom line up front) and then expound if needed. Remember "Napoleon's corporal." I also lost track of the number of times you had to stop yourself from going off on tangents. I appreciate the depth of your knowledge but your ability to convey it in a podcast format needs work.
Life is full of disappointments. I’m a writer, not a speaker. And I don’t care to become a speaker.
It's your ball...you can take it and go home if you like. Seems a bit of a waste to me though.
On the contrary, if you don't like it, then no one is obliging you to listen to it. In any case, this piece wasn't responding to questions from listeners but to three particular individuals with objections to content rather than delivery.