Sedevacantists, Society of Pope Pius IX, etc...

Well, basically, Sandy, the sedevaticanists reject Vatican II because they see it as being "too liberal". They equate the liturgical nonsense, the awful music, the dissident clergy, and all the other problems in the Church with the council. Actually, Vatican Council II had nothing to do with these problems (which, finally, are starting to turn around); the silliness which Catholics have had to endure for the last 40 years have been the fault of liberal clergy and laypeople in Western countries. Vatican II actually changed very little in the practice of the Church---but the "liturgical reformers" haven't been putting Vatican II into practice; instead, they've been putting their own agendas into practice in the name of Vatican II. (For a very good examination of this phenominon, read What Went Wrong With Vatican II, by Ralph McInerny, Sophia Press, ISBN 0-918477-79-4.)

The sedevaticanists saw all this silliness that took place in the wake of the council, and they decided that it had to be the fault of the council. And it naturally followed that since it was the fault of the council, why then, the council just had to be the work of the devil. (Thus the references to "the smoke of Satan has entered the sanctuary", and all that kind of hogwash.)

Usually the sedevaticanists, since they reject Vatican II, will insist that only the Tridentine Latin Mass established after the Council of Trent is the only "valid" Mass, along with all the other reforms enacted by Trent; they want a return to what they consider to be the "glory days" of the Church, say about 1957 or so. Anything after that is anathema. They feel that Pope John XXIII, since he called the 2nd Vatican Council, was at fault for the disintegration of the Church, or rather, of their idealized concept of it. Pope John obviously had to be under the influence of Old Scratch hisself, and since the council was invalid, everyhting since then has also been invalid. The Novus Ordo Mass of Pope Paul VI is invalid, and Popes Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II are also all invalid. In their view, the Holy See has been vacant ever since the last "real" Pope, Pius XII, died in 1958.

There are various shades of sedevaticanism; probably some of the most radical ones are the tiny group of loons who elected their own "Pope" in a clapboard cabin up in Montana a few years ago. (It makes you wonder if they were in cahoots with the Unabomber, two clapboard cabins up the road.) The group with the most exposure is the so-called "Priestly Society of St. Pius X", a splinter group started by the late Swiss Archbishop Marcel LeFebvre, which is in open schism with Rome.

Archbishop LeFebvre originally seemed to have few objections to Vatican II, but as time went on, he became more and more distant from the authority of the Holy See, and by the early 1970s was an open dissident to Rome. On June 30, 1988, he "ordained" four priests of his movement as "bishops", after the Holy See had specifically warned him that he had no authority to do so without proper permission from the Holy See, and that if he did it anyway, he would suffer automatic excommunication with the Roman Catholic Church. He went ahead and did it anyway, and was automatically excommunicated, along with his organization and all his followers. Of course, since SSPX rejects the authority of Rome and the Holy Father, they shrugged this off as irrelevant. In their eyes, they are correct, and Rome is wrong, and they have attracted all manner of disgruntled conservatives and reactionaries since. They remain in a state of open rebellion against Rome, even though Rome has tried to reconcile the group many times since. Archbishop LeFebvre ended his days as a very bitter man, and his schismatic group is the fruit of his labors.

Anyway, that's a thumbnail sketch of sedevaticanism and SSPX. Does this help?

Blessings,
---Wols.

It's hard to say. Part of the answer might lie in the fact that Vatican II hit at about the same time that the Sickening Sixties did, with all of the related upheaval. It was a nasty, noisy, disgusting little decade which gave us our present joys of illicit drugs, unrestrained sex accompanied by various VD's, the "Me First" entitlement mentality, and harebrained liberals with all of their harebrained ideas. A lot of really fruity people came out of the woodwork during the 60's, and influenced a lot of the younger generation, unfortunately.

On the plus side, there has always been a period of anywhere from 30 to 100 years of major silt-settling after every major ecumenical council, and it looks as if the lunacy we've endured for the last 40 years is finally starting to evaporate as the people in leadership positions from that era mercifully go to their reward. I know that sounds cruel, but it's true nevertheless.

Blessings,
---Wols.

I guess that may be the problem. I want it to be reasonable, and it just isn't.

Click to expand...

I think you've pretty well hit the nail on the head, there. Extreme people are usually not even rational, let alone reasonable.

I am of the opinion his actions were totally justified, and that his statements regarding the creation of a parallel religion alongside and within the structures of nominal Catholicism, were accurate and are easy to see.

Click to expand...

Well, Augustine, that's where we disagree. As I said previously, faithful Catholics have had to deal with a lot of nonsense from their clergy over the last 40 years, true enough; but open rebellion against the Holy See is never justified, for any reason. Archbishop LeFebvre may have been distraught over what he was seeing, but he chose the wrong path, IMHO, in dealing with it, especially by taking matters into his own hands. The Church does not belong to him, it belongs to Christ, and it is Christ's job to preserve it. Any time a human being decides he has to "save" the Church from itself, you will have a schism.

Two opposing examples, I think, illustrate my point. The Church has needed reform and refurbishment at various times during her history, and two of those times were during the 13th century and the 16th century. Both times there were problems in the Church, and both times there were charismatic men who rose up and tried to address the problems and solve them. Both men ran into reluctance and suspicion from the Holy See concerning their ideas, and both men had to deal with a certain amount of opposition from the reigning Pontiffs at the time.

The big difference was, the first man humbly submitted himself to the Holy Father, and accepted the rulings of the Holy See, even when those rulings went against him. But he refused to oppose the Church, choosing instead to embrace her with all his might. The movement he started grew and spread, and eventually became very successful, influencing the entire Church, cleaning out a lot of the problems we have aformentioned, and, in time, received the approbation of the Holy See that the first man had sought to begin with. His movement continues to flourish today.

The second man decided that if the Holy See opposed him, then the Holy See was obviously wrong. The Church needed reform, and if Rome was reluctant to begin it, then Rome needed to be opposed. This man was not humble and patient like the first man, but was prideful, arrogant, and stubborn. Rather than working within the Church, this man set up his own organization as a parallel to the Church, adhering to what he decided was actually the true practice of the Faith. His movement also grew and spread, but it not only did not receive the approbation of the Holy See, it unfortunately left in its wake two centuries of upheaval, warfare, rebellion, hatred, and bloodshed. His movement continues to exist, but has splintered into thousands of different bickering components, all of which lack unity, and, to varying degrees, orthodoxy.

You have probably guessed by now who I'm talking about in both cases. The first man was Francis of Assisi. The second man was Martin Luther.

Marcel LeFebvre, IMHO, has more in common with Luther than with Francis of Assisi, simply because rather than remaining loyal to the Church which Christ established and having steadfast faith that Christ would preserve it as He promised to do, he took matters into his own fallible hands and did it his own way---and ended up in schism. And as I said at the outset, rebellion against the Holy See is never justified.

You are, of course, under no compunction to agree with me.

Blessings and peace,
---Wols.

-but the "liturgical reformers" haven't been putting Vatican II into practice; instead, they've been putting their own agendas into practice in the name of Vatican II"

Click to expand...

"But while they desire to set aside that true Council, they endeavor to give that name to their own unlawful combination; while they are unwilling that the decrees of the Council should be enforced, they desire to enforce their own decisions; and they use the name of a Council, while they refuse to submit themselves to one so great as this. Thus they care not for Councils, but only pretend to do so in order that they may root out the orthodox".

I couldn't help but notice the similarity between those two quotes. However, the quote that I provided I found in St. Athanasius's Apologia contra Arianos, dealing, of course, with how the Arians tried to hijack the First Council of Nicea. So today many try to hijack Vatican II. I guess that only goes to prove Ecclesiastes 1:10-11 correct.

"What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; and there is nothing new under the sun. Is there a thing of which it is said, 'See, this is new'? It has been already in the ages before us."

Two questions on this topic:

[1] Having interacted with SSPXers elsewhere, some of them would also argue that the Novus Ordo Mass incorporated ecumenical Protestant emphases (focus as a communal meal, priest facing the people, etc.). Is that not an important aspect of the disagreement?

[2] I have read some of Gerry Matatics' materials (he was a doctoral student where I did my doctorate before he converted. He was a close friend of Scott Hahn). Is he considered a sedevacantist? His books and tapes are quite popular and I think he is avery articulate RC apologist.

Thanks for the opportunity to ask some questions of my Catholic friends here.

drstevej said:

Two questions on this topic:

[1] Having interacted with SSPXers elsewhere, some of them would also argue that the Novus Ordo Mass incorporated ecumenical Protestant emphases (focus as a communal meal, priest facing the people, etc.). Is that not an important aspect of the disagreement?

Click to expand...

That's part of it, although their main issue with the Mass is changing the words of consecration and the focus on the meal aspect, mainly by dropping the traditional Offertory.

drstevej said:

[2] I have read some of Gerry Matatics' materials (he was a doctoral student where I did my doctorate before he converted. He was a close friend of Scott Hahn). Is he considered a sedevacantist? His books and tapes are quite popular and I think he is avery articulate RC apologist.

Thanks for the opportunity to ask some questions of my Catholic friends here.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure whether he's sedevacantist or not, but much of his stuff is quite orthodox.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't SPPX not sedevaticanists but rather "in error" because they reject the precepts of Vatican II? I know to many here that may seem like one in the same sin, but Im not interested in peoples take on them (for the moment) The distiction I've heard made is that, for them (unless it is a different group) the Pope in Rome is indeed the Pope of the Church, but that Vatican II fell into grave error (and I believe they actually quote things from Vatican II they don't like, rather than just using strawmen) and that it is because of this that relations between Rome and this group are, at best, strained for the time. Is this SPPX or some other group? Whatever group this was, I thought it was the same one Mel Gibson was a part of.

Can anyone straighten me out? I pretty sure I'm not making any of this up, but I wouldn't be surprised in I'm confusing unrelated groups.

John

I believe that the SSPX is considered in schism and their priests have valid but illicit ordinations. Catholics cannot fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending an SSPX Mass unless there is no other option, so a bit similiar to the ideas in regard to the Orthodox on that. The SSPX don't consider themselves schismatic, they acknowledge the Pope as the legitiment successor of Peter but they have grave concerns about things post Vatican II ... some or most don't consider the novus ordo Mass to be legitiment and would say it doesn't fulfill the Sunday obligation. So it goes both ways on that one.

John, I believe Mel Gibson's father is a sedevacantist. Not sure on Mel himself but he may lean more towards an SSPX attitude even if he isn't part of the group.

On Gerry Matatics, I believe he attends an FSSP traditional mass which is approved and within the Catholic church proper... his previous work was excellent and orthodox but you might take some things with more caution and checking against more mainstream sources.

Marcia

marciadietrich said:

Catholics cannot fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending an SSPX Mass unless there is no other option,

Click to expand...

I'm not sure about that - SSPX Masses are valid but illicit, and I think I've seen something from the Vatican saying they do fulfill the obligation, but it might be sinful to attend them.

Thanks Marcia,

So SPPX is not sedevaticanists for they don't believe they Seat of Peter is Empty (IOW, they anknowledge Pope Bendictus XVI as the Pope of Rome) but they are schismatic in that they don't accept Vatican II. Right? Makes sense.

John, I believe Mel Gibson's father is a sedevacantist. Not sure on Mel himself but he may lean more towards an SSPX attitude even if he isn't part of the group.

Click to expand...

This may very well be true. I do know though that he has expressed no uncertain distaste for the Council... but that doesn't mean the property on his land is schismatic. Anyway, the Mel thing was just as a point of interest. hardly important in the scheme of things.

John

Paul S said:

I'm not sure about that - SSPX Masses are valid but illicit, and I think I've seen something from the Vatican saying they do fulfill the obligation, but it might be sinful to attend them.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that it might be both of those things? That it fulfills the SoO AND could be sinful? Or do you mean it could be one or the other. The two together makes absolutely no sense to me.

It seems to me that go to an Orthodox Liturgy does not fulfill this. Today I took my Latin Catholic friend to a Melkite Church because he couldn't miss his Sunday of Obligation and according to him going to an Orthodox Church would not have fulfilled that (which makes sense since.... it's not Catholic). Is this true?

John

It seems to me that go to an Orthodox Liturgy does not fulfill this. Today I took my Latin Catholic friend to a Melkite Church because he couldn't miss his Sunday of Obligation and according to him going to an Orthodox Church would not have fulfilled that (which makes sense since.... it's not Catholic). Is this true?

Click to expand...

The obligation would be fulfilled if there was not a Church in communion with Rome available.

God Bless,

Neal

Xpycoctomos said:

Are you saying that it might be both of those things? That it fulfills the SoO AND could be sinful? Or do you mean it could be one or the other. The two together makes absolutely no sense to me.

Click to expand...

I meant it could be both, although I could be wrong on this.

It seems to me that go to an Orthodox Liturgy does not fulfill this. Today I took my Latin Catholic friend to a Melkite Church because he couldn't miss his Sunday of Obligation and according to him going to an Orthodox Church would not have fulfilled that (which makes sense since.... it's not Catholic). Is this true?

Click to expand...

You are correct about Orthodox liturgies not fulfilling the obligation.

Here's a letter from the Ecclesia Dei commission, the Vatican group which oversees the indult.

In part, it says:

1.) The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but they are suspended from exercising their priestly functions. To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated.

2.) Concretely this means that the Masses offered by these priests are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to the law of the Church.

Points 1 and 3 in our letter of 27 September 2002 to this correspondent are accurately reported. His first question was "Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass" and our response was:

"1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X."

His second question was "Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass" and we responded stating:

"2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin."

Click to expand...

From what I know, the SSPX do indeed acknowledge John Paull II and now Benedict XVI as the lawful successors of Peter. Lefebvre felt he was justified in what he did in the Consecration of four bishops because he saw it as a grave need to preseve the faith and the orders of consecration in their pervious form. That will be a matter for the Church to decide upon though. However, I am not defending his actions or views, but I will point out that what he did in consecrating those bishops and taking what he believed to be radical steps in preserving the faith, or some aspect of it, are not unprecendented in Church history at all.

St. Athanasius was excommunicated by the pope of his time as well.. in fact he was excommunicated 5 times during which, he continued to illegally consecrate priests because he felt it gravely neccessary to do so...

Also, Saint Patrick of Ireland illegally consecrated at least 30 bishops in defiance of a direct order not to do so from the pope because he also felt their was grave need to do so...

In both of these cases their were illegal consecrations which, after a period of time and when all the dust settled, the pope or one of his successors finally canonically recognized and accepted the priests of St. Athanasius and the bishops of St. Patrick and fully exhonerated their names of both consecrators. So it is in light of examples such as this that I think Lefebvre was operating, that is, to him he felt it gravely necessary to do what he did. Whether or not he was justified has been and will continue to be judged by the Pope.

Futhermore, the Church does not neccessarily consider them schismatic in the same sense as it would apply to other "separated brethren" but instead deal with them as "an internal matter" that is, a matter within the Church. The SSPX is very shaky ground to tread upon and and one which I would not feel comfortable in so in my opinion it is best to avoid attendance if possible.

As far as Mel Gibson, all we know is that he is a tradtional Catholic, but we don't know if he is tradtional as in Paul S, or traditional as in SSPX. Mel chooses to keep that private. But what we do know is that he attends nothing but the Tridentine Mass... and thats about all we know of the degree of his stance. Makes darn great movies though... Gerry Matatics is one of the most brilliant Scriptural apologists there is. From what I know he never attends a Novus Ordo Mass but only FSSP Masses and is very outspoken about the traditional Faith.

J.M.J.
Mark

plainswolf said:

From what I know, the SSPX do indeed acknowledge John Paull II and now Benedict XVI as the lawful successors of Peter. Lefebvre felt he was justified in what he did in the Consecration of four bishops because he saw it as a grave need to preseve the faith and the orders of consecration in their pervious form. That will be a matter for the Church to decide upon though.

Click to expand...

It has been decided, Mark. You cannot compare the historical cases you cite with the schismatic Lefebvre, or Communications in those centuries with the same in ours. The Vatican was only a phone call away.

There were no misunderstandings. Each side perfectly understood the other. Lefebvre was specifically warned BEFOREHAND that consecration of Bishops would result in excommunication. It thus became an ipso facto excommunication. He contumaciously disobeyed the Holy Father and deliberately created a schism. I believe he was senelescent at the time and was persuaded by his minions in what he did. I hope that this will mitigate his moral culpability, perhaps even excusing him, on the personal level.

Michelina said:

It has been decided, Mark. You cannot compare the historical cases you cite with the schismatic Lefebvre, or Communications in those centuries with the same in ours. The Vatican was only a phone call away.

Click to expand...

Communications were not the relevant factor. Their motivating factor was what they percieved as a grave necessity to do what they did.



Furthermore, I'm not trying to justify the actions of Lefebvre, but hoping that he truly felt the neccessity to do what he did that might hopefully mitigate some degree of moral culpability as I would hate to see anyone loose their soul.

J.M.J.
Mark