Sedevacantism Debunked

The article linked here is a rebuttal of a Sedevacantist criticism of John Salza, already mentioned on this blog and a proposer of classical Traditionalism in SSPX style, which they call “recognise and resist”.

I have read the article in its entirety, and it seems to me both the original article and the rebuttal are worth reading; and whilst I do not doubt that the Novus Ordo Watch troops are composed of good and sincere Catholics, I find the one or other criticism levelled at them to be rather well-chosen.

The article deals mainly with the matter of Papal infallibility and the correct reading of the Conciliar documents; apart from the little and understandable blunder of calling Francis' torrential apostolic exhortation “encyclical letter”, I find the author's every sentence worthy of careful reading and agreement.

The article does not deal with the other, so to speak, missing leg of modern Sedevacantism: the impossibility to reconcile the Indefectibility of the Church with the strange theory that a fake church is now confused all over the planet and believed to be the right one; whilst only a bunch of very smart theologians and their very perceptive readers understands that the NO Church is an impostor and the real Church is a teeny weeny spot on the Catholic world radar.

One thing is to say that a Pope is, even, a formal heretic. Quite another is to say that the entire system has short-circuited 50 years ago, and is now unable to produce valid priests, deacons, bishops and yes, Popes, without any idea of how God will set things right.

The article also has useful references to past Popes, and some interesting details about the apparently factual occurrence of the “deposition” of the offending Pope by the Roman clergy and, transposed to today, some (or better: many) good Cardinals. A thorny issue, this one, but again one showing there isn't much new under the sun, and the problems we have now have been encountered in the past already.

The article is certainly is worth your time.

Mundabor

 

 

Posted on September 9, 2014, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. 19 Comments.

  1. Sede Vacante or not, there seems no argument that the “Church of Darkness” of which Bl. Anna Catherine Emmerich spoke, that counterfeit of the secret societies and the enemies of Christ (note to Mundabor – not an “end times” prophecy), inhabits Rome and the chanceries and seminaries and convents of the world.

    I hate it with every fibre of my being.

    • Oh, we are different here.
      I love the Church and would consider a blessing to have the opportunity and the strength to die for Her. I love her even in Her dismal state.
      What I hate are the wolves who keep pissing and pooping on her.
      But I must make this distinction because there is only one Church, and she cannot but be holy, qua Church.
      M

    • You might be splitting hairs, Mundabor. I would read Bl. Anna to be referring – and I certainly refer – to just the “wolves” you do. I don’t speak against our love for Holy Mother Church and the Catholic Faith, for which we pray we would all glady die if called. But the cabal of men who would use Her authority to devastate Her, to dress Her as a harlot and corrupt the faith and hope of simple Catholics? Well, for me, the term “Church of Darkness” is more than apt.

    • But you see: as long as we criticise the men, we are still upholding our allegiance to the Church. When we, on the other hand, start to consider the institution in itself as corrupted, then we open the door – if not willingly, in those who listen to us – to every possible mistake, from sedevacantism to protestantism.
      It is not splittign hair. It is stressing our allegiance to the child (ahem: Child) as we lament the horrible bathwater.
      M

  2. Oh my goodness, that blog is written by the catholic girlyman who haunts Louie’s blog, launching passive-aggressive attacks on anybody who dares to lampoon or insult Freaky Francis. He tried that on me, and I thereby spent a couple of days refuting his ego-driven approach and exposing his snide insults. He finally started whining about being “bullied” and, on cue, the women stepped in to ‘save’ him.

    How ironic, Mundabor, that you would cite somebody who would sneer (in passive aggressive fashion) at everything you do here.

    • I do not share this view.
      The article is brilliant and, in my eyes, well worth the reading.
      It does not mean that I endorse the blog that hosts it, nor have I any intention of researching a blog before linking to it, if I think there is in it material beneficial to my readership.
      You have, too, moved no criticism to the content itself.
      M

  3. This doesn’t make sense.

    Either the Sea is vacant or it isn’t, it can’t be wandering in the ether.
    The juridical acts are obviously valid: if he appoints a bishop, that man is a bishop. But he can never go against Truth, so nothing can be changed of that which… Can’t be changed.
    Popes cannot teach anything in contrast with Truth. The question whether bollocks is right or wrong is neither here nor there. There is no need to have Francis proved wrong. If he goes against Truth he is wrong, period.

    I wonder if you have read the article, which deals in detail with the assent to be given to Popes’ statements in the various circumstances.
    M

    • quiavideruntoculi

      You are right of course that the see must in fact either be vacant or not. We are not, however, always privileged to possess full or sufficient knowledge of the facts to judge. In such cases it behoves us, surely, to refrain from judgement.

      If we perceive legitimate reason to pause and doubt, but not legitimate cause to conclude for certain, if we are genuinely perplexed, then it seems legitimate for practical purposes to hedge our bets in this way.

      Surely no one can be condemned if, in good faith, he doubts the Papacy of x for a good reason. Equally, it is ridiculous and impossible to sustain – as some sedevacantists do – that they are outside the Church who, under the present circumstances, acknowledge Francis as Pope.

    • The worst seems to me when a person, who is sufficiently instructed in Catholic things, thinks he can suspend the judgment whether he has a Pope.
      If the Pope is shocking (and this one, God knows, is) then a proper Catholic must invest his time in giving himself the historical and doctrinal instruments to understand that the situation is, horrible as it is, his lot.
      Already the idea of doubting a papacy in which no attempt was made to proclaim a false dogma smacks of protestantism in my eyes.
      The Pope is rubbish. Deal with it. Rubbish popes happen.

      M

  4. I’m content to have had my say without it being censored out.

    As far as SV, that doesn’t agitate me at all. The task at hand is to upend the moneychangers’ tables (i.e., the activity of using the Faith for worldly purposes), rather than abandoning that and distracting from that in favor of focusing on attacking our allies. It was N.O.W. that developed the story of Francis hiding his cross in his sash – while Longenecker is defending Dolan over the St. Pat Day parade.

    I have zero desire to be strutting around as the winner of debates. The time will come one day for each of us when we will be asked by God: what did we do to oppose the evil that Francis and his henchmen brought? The right answer won’t have much to do with being against N.O.W., or in demanding that Francis and his henchmen be treated with undeserved respect, or in judging others for being judgmental — all of which the girlyman in question constantly does. That said, he is mostly insignificant and wouldn’t have been discussed here by me except for the circumstance of this article.

    • father L is outing himself as a perfectly useless, or worse, blogger. I have just written another post about his female colleague with the famous dad. N.O.W. make in my eyes a sterling work in exposing the horrible deeds of Francis & Co., but it certainly cannot be unnoticed that they have a rather snarky attitude towards, basically, pretty much everyone, even the fiercest traditionalists, for not seeing a truth so “evident” to them, and so absurd to us.

      I have linked to NOW on a couple of occasions, but I am weary of unwittingly nourishing a climate of proto-sedevacantism that I see around me rather often, and which Francis will continue to fuel as long as he remains Pope (hopefully, no longer than tomorrow night).

      M

  5. “nor have I any intention of researching a blog before linking to it”

    That’s why I alerted you – as a favor, not a criticism of you.

    • Ah, thanks.
      Not to worry: if I happen to chance on the blog and see anything grating me, I will make a due know on my handkerchief. I must say I also not linked the man to any commenter on mr Verrecchio’s site; but again I tend not to remember the authors’ names.
      M

  6. I agree; the rebuttal was well written. Maybe BigFred meant his criticism for the sedevacantist blogger. A Catholic Thinker (he wrote the rebuttal) is rather verbiose on Louie V’s combox, but it would be hard to fault his logic.

    As for the sedevacantists, I am glad there are people more patient & charitable than I am; I wouldn’t even answer their ramblings, although it should be done I imagine.

  7. Catholic Thinker

    Hello Mundabor,

    I was surprised to find that you had discovered my little piece here. I thank you for the attention as I am a fan of your blog.

  8. Catholic Thinker

    Hello Mundabor,

    Could I beg of you the opportunity to allow me, the author of the article that is the subject of this post, to make a brief response to the personal attacks above? Now, these things are beneath us all, of course, which is why I intend to leave it as a single, brief statement.

    Concerning the facts, they are available in the commenting history of the blog mentioned. The issue was that I commented negatively on the habit of personally insulting the pontiff, and in taking glee in it. I thought it was a fair statement at the time; I always subsequently apologized for personal offense taken, and tried to make peace.

    I would encourage anyone interested in an accurate description of what transpired (though I’d also encourage no one to be interested!) to peruse the old (this was many months ago) blog posts in question. I’ll say no more.

    As for my positions regarding the crisis and your work here, which was commented on inaccurately, I am a Society of St. Pius X Mass-goer, and subscribe, if it must be labeled, to the “Recognize & Resist” philosophy, which is really that of St. Bellarmine and the other major theologians who taught on the issues that face us today. I think my position is pretty evident from the piece in question as well as my other writings.

    The ubiquitous habits among dogmatic sede vacantists of personal attack, bitterness, anger, and lack of charity is the reason I (and many others) find their writings grating – and their positions, which ultimately, I think, are based on the same emotions, unconvincing.

    Thanks again for referencing my article; I’m flattered you liked it.

%d bloggers like this: