With all the fuss over John Salza and Robert Siscoe's latest attack on sedevacantism, an article came to my attention written by another "recognize and resist" (aka "R&R") author---Atila S. Guimarares from the website traditioninaction.org. Entitled Looking At Some Basics of Sede-Vacantism, the former NYC teacher in me was reminded of a truism: If you get the basics of any discipline wrong, you can't expect to get anything else correct about it. If a student can't understand addition and subtraction, don't expect them to learn multiplication and division. Mr. Guimarares, like Siscoe and Salza, begins with false theological premises from which no sound, valid conclusions can ever be drawn. I would like to draw my reader's attention to the incorrect principles of Mr. Guimarares' article, to see how those of the R&R camp either (a) purposely distort or (b) can't (won't) understand the "basics" of the sedevacantist position. To attempt to go through all that was wrong with this article would require several posts, so I'll limit myself to his most egregious errors. Under each heading below, the article will be in red print and my comment below.
False Principle #1: A Heretic CAN Be Pope
"...since a scholar knows that any heretic, upon falling into heresy, disconnects himself from the Church, he is led to apply this to the conciliar Popes and to draw juridical consequences from this fact: The present day Popes are no longer Popes, they lose their jurisdiction, their sacraments are not valid, the Bishops consecrated by them are not Bishops, the priests are not priests, etc."
I know of not one theologian who teaches (nor of any sedevacantist who states) that heresy renders sacraments using the Traditional Catholic Rite invalid. It is a dogma of the Faith that the Sacraments work ex opere operato ("from the work wrought") and independent of the cleric's moral worthiness, including the sin of heresy. If what Guimarares thinks was correct, how could he explain the fact that the Eastern heretics who deny the Immaculate Conception, the Infallibility of the pope, etc., have always been in possession of valid sacraments according to the Church?
"I have accompanied these studies from afar, and I also know that a heretic cannot be a member of the Church. When I apply this principle to the conciliar Popes, however, I stop at the affirmation that they are heretics. I do not enter into the juridical consequences of this fact. The imperative reason is simple: Pope Boniface VIII in the Bull Unam Sanctam clearly interpreted the words of Scripture, 'The spiritual man judges all things and he himself is judged by no man' (1 Cor 2:15), as applicable to Popes. And he concluded saying definitively that no one can 'judge' a Pope. 'To judge,' for Boniface VIII, was not to make a dogmatic or moral appraisal about the thinking or the conduct of a Pope, but rather to attribute to oneself the power of deposing him. Boniface VIII was indirectly dealing with the case of the King of France, Philip the Fair, who pretended he could depose and make Popes."
A famous R&R "boogeyman": Sedevacantism "judges" the pope. As a procedural matter he is correct, "The First See is judged by no one" as Canon 1556 of the 1917 Code clearly states. As explained by canonist Cappello, "Immunity of the Roman Pontiff. 'The First See is judged by no one.' (Canon 1556). This concerns the Apostolic See or the Roman Pontiff who by the divine law itself enjoys full and absolute immunity." (See Summa Juris Canonici 3:19.) However, a pope who becomes a manifest heretic loses his office by DIVINE LAW, and an apostate, like Bergoglio, cannot attain the office. This is the teaching of all pre-Vatican II canonists and theologians. (To name but a few, Van Noort, Coronata, Dorsch, Iragui, Prümmer, Regatillo, Salaverri, and Zubizarreta). "We" depose no one.
"Now, when someone affirms today that the conciliar Popes are not Popes, that person implicitly is attributing to himself that power. Even when, to avoid such arrogance, a person says that the Pope automatically ceases to be Pope and therefore the See is vacant, it seems to me that he does not have the right to conclude 'therefore the seat is vacant' because here he directly enters the prohibited zone."
Once more, I know of not one Church authority that discusses "the prohibited zone." The import is clear: We can judge the pope a heretic, but we can't draw the logical implication from that fact. Put another way, in American law today (tragically) abortion is not considered either murder or a crime. Does that mean we cannot judge a doctor who performs an abortion as a murderer? Major premise: Performing an abortion is murder. Minor premise: Dr. X performed an abortion. Conclusion: Dr. X is a murderer. The R&R camp's major premise: A heretic cannot be a member of the Church. Minor premise: The "concilliar popes" are heretics. Conclusion: The concilliar "popes" are members (and visible head) of the Church! Talk about skewed "logic."
False Principle #2: You Can "Resist" A Pope Like St. Paul
"St. Paul told us not to accept a different Gospel, even should it be presented by an Angel from Heaven. Consistent with such teaching, he resisted St. Peter when the latter scandalized the faithful. Such precedent teaches us that we can judge whoever is not in accordance with the Gospel, even if it is a high authority, a representative of Heaven. Thus, we can denounce and resist a Pope when he scandalizes the faithful. However, neither St. Paul nor any other Apostle declared the See to be vacant. We find no example of this in Scriptures."
Sheer ignorance. The only pope discussed in the Bible is St. Peter, so we are dealing with a limited number of historical examples, to say the least. The fraternal correction of St. Peter by St. Paul is recorded in Galatians 2:11-14. According to theologian Suarez: "I therefore respond to the objection that fraternal correction to the Supreme Pontiff is fitting, insofar as it is a duty of charity, and as such it is proven that this may take place as someone greater by someone lesser, and as a Prelate is corrected by his subject, as Paul acted towards Peter… Thus the Pontiff may be respectfully corrected and admonished, first alone, if his crime be secret, and then before a few others, if the matter and necessity require it. But what follows,'tell the church,'has no place here, because the term 'Church' means not the body of the Church, but [an offender’s] Prelate.… Because the pope has no superior Prelate, such a denunciation has no place in his case. Rather since he himself is the Pastor of the whole Church, the Church is sufficiently 'told' of his sin when it is told to the Pope himself." (See De Immunitate Ecclesiastica 4:6.12; Emphasis mine). The whole idea that you can "denounce and resist" a pope (in matters of Faith, morals, or universal disciplinary laws) is unsupported. No one declared the See of St. Peter vacant because he was not a heretic. One CAN legitimately refuse a personal order of the pope to do something immoral (e.g., go kill one of my enemies, etc.)
False Principle #3: "Reverse Sedeprivationism"
"In accordance with the laws of visible societies, the conciliar Popes were chosen by a designated electoral body, the College of Cardinal; they were accepted by the ensemble of the Catholic Hierarchy and by the ensemble of the faithful and were recognized as valid Popes by the whole world. One could say, therefore, that these Popes are de facto Popes. Are they also de iure Popes? Just as a temporal ruler acknowledged by all as such has the power of jurisdiction of his office, so also does a conciliar Pope. Therefore, I would say that despite the heresy, they retain the right to command in everything that is not directly heresy."
The sedeprivationists also hold the See of Peter is vacant, but not in the same way as your sedevacantist. Francis would be a "material pope" only; a placeholder for the day when he (or his material successor) publicly abjures his heresy, condemns Vatican II, obtains valid orders, and then becomes formal pope. A material pope has no authority and is not to be obeyed. In the R&R world, a pope can be pope-in-fact, but not pope-in-law (whatever those terms mean), and YOU get to decide what to obey and what to reject as "direct heresy."
False Principle #4: A Notorious Heretic= Nobody Loves Francis
Nobody in the R&R camp seems to be able to do the simple research for what makes heresy "notorious." Here, Guimaraes thinks it means some sort of "popular uprising" against a hated ruler. Once enough people join Siscoe, Salza, Bp. Williamson, the Society of St. Pius X, etc, then the pope-in-fact will no longer be pope-in-law. Any second year seminarian from pre-Vatican II days would be able to tell you that "notorious" is understood by the theologians and canonists as meaning "manifest." The pope's heresy must be public for him to lose his authority by Divine Law. A pope who is an "occult" (i.e., "secret") heretic remains as pope. According to canonist Michels, an heretical statement becomes "manifest" or "notorious" when it "is established through authentic public documents… because such documents of their nature are open to inspection by many people, and therefore necessarily bring with them public notice." (See De Delictis et Poenis, 1:140) Virtually every decree published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (the official digest for all documents of the Holy See) by the post-Vatican II "popes" would qualify as notorious heresy!
Conclusion: What You Don't Know CAN Hurt You
The false principles of the R&R camp (a heretic can be pope, we can resist a pope by picking and choosing what we think is correct, strange and unsupported notions about the nature of the papacy, and misunderstandings of theological and canonical concepts) all exist in one kind or another throughout the movement. By failing (or refusing) to understand the true principles that ground sedevacantism, and using false principles to assert their position of "recognize and resist" the "pope," Siscoe, Salza, Guimaraes, and the others are keeping people in union with the Argentinian apostate and his evil sect. How can they "look at the basics of sedevacantism" when they don't even have a clue as to what they are and how they apply to the instant case? Remember the sobering words of the prophet Hosea, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." (Hosea 4:6).
I am a Roman catholic and our chapel rejects every change post 1950.(I refuse to use any 'sede' type title)ReplyDelete
It seems these R&R types are very concerned with selling books,DVD's,tickets to their 'talks',etc..Not to mention their unhealthy obsession with Fatima.I honestly think many of them know better yet realize if they don't acknowledge the "Pope" their bread and butter is gone and they may have to obtain real jobs.
(Just an observation I could be and possibly am 100% wrong)
No, I think you're correct. They want Frankie as pope for several reasons; financial gain definitely seems to be one of them!Delete
The Novus Ordo service and their fake sacraments are not Catholic,but was in fact fabricated by the Freemasons using heretical Protestant models,that service is invalid and heretical according to Catholic Tradition, according to the dogmatic Council of Trent, and according to the Solemn Papal Bull Apostolicae curae of Pope Leo XIII.Delete
Would you agree that many famous 'professional' R&R types know better yet insist on some bizarre acknowledgement of the 'Pope'/Novus Ordo for various,financial,dubious reason's?
I would agree with you.Delete
Regarding the Salza/Siscoe book, which they claim refutes Sedevacantism, I have recently posted an article on why I am NOT going to read their book! http://divinefiat.blogspot.com/2016/04/who-is-true-or-false-pope_2.htmlReplyDelete
I will read it Mr.Rega,that makes 2 of us.Delete
You couldn't pay me to read that book.
Evil must let you know it's intent and activity.John Sala,in my opinion,is still a Zio-freemason.His role has been the one who reveals Satan's plans and intent.
Thank you for this great article Frank!Delete
This is a good example of why so many traditional Catholics remain stuck in dead-end positions. Their minds and hearts are closed.Delete
I'm not sure how to interpret your comment. If you mean sedevacantist minds are closed, I disagree. If they have something new to say (and I know now that they don't), it doesn't take 700+ pages to do it. To repeat the same arguments proven unsound in the hopes that repetition will make them better is the epitome of being close-minded.Delete
Could someone please enlighten me regarding what would essentially get the Church back "on track"? Mention is made of proper ordination of the Pope, on top of repudiating all of Vatican II, etc. I'm not being antagonistic, but rather making an inquiry. British philosopher F.D. Maurice said that "a man his most often right in what he affirms and wrong in what he denies." So, what is it that would set the Barque of Peter aright, and from what authoritative sources does this information come? What I am not looking for, are simply pious or faithful opinions.ReplyDelete
In my meaningless opinion,a repudiation and dissolution of every change since 1950 and every invalid 'priest' and 'bishop' receiving valid holy orders and seminary training would make a great start.(Including making the after midnight holy communion fast mandatory)Delete
Dear Rev. Bolin,Delete
I'm wondering if you are the U.S. Army Major, who was "ordained" in 2013 for the Anglican Ordinariate as a married man. The fact that you are reading this blog shows you to be of good will, and I commend you. Out of Christian Charity, I must tell you that Vatican 2 ordinations are every bit as invalid as those Anglican Orders declared "absolutely null and utterly void" by Pope Leo XIII in 1896. You (and your ordaining prelate) are mere laymen. I'll be praying for your conversion so you may receive true Holy Communion and not some piece of ordinary bread as you do now. Outside the One True Church, there is no salvation, and the Vatican 2 sect is NOT the Roman Catholic Church.
To answer you query:
The papacy can be restored in two possible ways
(1) If Sedeprivationism is true, Francis is a material pope only; a place-holder. To become pope (formally and truly ) he would need to publicly abjure the heresies of Vatican 2, professes the integral Catholic Faith, and be re-ordained/re-consecrated by a Traditionalist Bishop having valid orders.
(2) If Sedeprivationism is not true, but sedevacantism proper (which holds Bergoglio to be not even "potential" or "material" pope, there needs to be an imperfect general council. When enough people reject Francis and his errors as non-Catholic, the conditions can be right for such a council to elect a true pope as sucessor to Pope Pius XII. This is because the conclave method cannot be used as the last of the valid Cardinals created by Pope Pius XII are all deceased.
I hope this answers your question. Feel free to ask me anything further. I'll be praying for your conversion.
As to sources, the theologian Cajetan (1469-1534) --and others--teach that should the College of Cardinals become extinct, the right to elect a pope would devolve to the clergy of Rome, and then to the universal Church (See "de Comparatione" 13, 742, 745). The precise solution to an unusual situation in the Church cannot so easily be predicted beforehand. Theologian Ban Noort had openly speculated what would happen if the College of Cardinals (including those made secretly by the pope) were wiped out together with Pope Pius XII by a hydrogen bomb placed in the Vatican by Communists. This situation never existed prior to the mid-20th century.Delete
We now live in an era of near universal apostasy.
I am the same, and I thank you for your candor and prayers. Yes, I am of good will here. I am very concerned for the Church. Thank you again.Delete
Dear Rev. Bolin, OT and just for interest, I have a great affection for the brave souls of the Anglican Ordinariate. Rev. Brian Charles du Cann was one of the humblest, holiest men I have ever met. One could feel the holiness radiating from him. He was an atheistic geologist doing a survey in Zululand when he stumbled upon a deserted Anglican mission church. He entered from curiosity and after a Damascus-like experience became a Christian, then an Anglican priest and finally an Ordinariate Catholic priest in my NO parish of St. John Fisher. We loved him dearly. He died on the operating table on 8 Nov., 2010. I pray for the repose of his soul daily and ask him to do the same for me, be he in Heaven, or Purgatory. I would bet my last dollar he is in Heaven! God bless your brave soul and I really hope and pray that you will find the way forward.Delete
"(1) If Sedeprivationism is true, Francis is a material pope only; a place-holder."ReplyDelete
I believe we sedes can safely accept the "Cassiciacum Thesis" of Bishop Guerard des Louriers as being a sound and valid theological thesis - IF a true Pope were to become a formal, manifest, pertinacious heretic. Question is can any of the conciliar popes be regarded as having been, or being, popes materialiter?
Sedevacantism Total and Sedeprivationism depend on the same Catholic doctrine and are distinguished in practice by the timing of the act of heresy. If the man committed the sin of heresy before being elected pope, his election was null and void, because he had already severed himself from the Church and a non-Catholic cannot be elected Pope. The See would be "totally" vacant. IF a true Pope were to become a heretic (which has never happened in the history of the Church and is quite likely impossible due to the protection of the Holy Ghost - see Introibo's post of 9 Feb., 2015), he would loose his authority (form;formaliter) due to the sin of heresy against Divine law, but would retain his valid election as "material" pope until his deposition by the proper authorities for the crime of heresy against canon law.
Roncalli and Montini were proven judeo-masons before their elections thereby affording certainty that said elections were void. The Judeo-masonic heresy is a sin against Divine law and a crime against canon law. Bergoglio wears the satanic pallium and insignia of the Patriarch of the World, as did JP II and Benedict.(I know very little about JP I.)
In the words of St. Robert
Bellarmine: "Since it can be proven that no true pope has ever become an heretic, THIS IS A SIGN FROM HEAVEN THAT IT CAN NEVER OCCUR." Vatican I investigated 40 cases of possibly heretical popes and infallibly declared that there had never been one.
Based on the above I conclude that although the Cassiciacum Thesis be sound theology and would apply IF a Pope could became a heretic, it is irrelevant to the conciliar popes who were heretics even before their elections and none of whom therefore were popes materialiter. The first source of possible Pope replacement mentioned above seems to me unlikely. There is no theological reason that an interregum could not last for very many years and in the words of Dorsch, recently quoted by Introibo: “For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate."
In summary, I think it is safe to say that we sedes definitely know what IS, although we don't have all the answers as to what WILL BE. However, that's not a big worry for us because Our Lord is in control and He does know precisely what He is going to do.
Well put, Dr. Lamb. I agree with you, but I lay out all the possibilities, even the ones I think highly improbable!Delete
I happily stumbled upon this blog after being bounced from an FSSP blogger's site who shall remain nameless.Delete
I don't mean to nitpick, but above you mentioned 're-ordination/re-consecration'. Isn't it conditional ordination and conditional consecration? One cannot be reordained or reconsecrated, correct?
You are correct. I'm speaking in an a less technical way. The Sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and Holy Orders (one Sacrament in three grades) cannot be repeated without sacrilege as they confer an indelible character on the soul. The RITE of an ordination/consecration has occurred, and the Rite would be repeated. It is in this sense I write about "re-ordination"Delete
I'm sorry, and again, not to belabor the point, even though I'm about to do that. If the religious rite that occurred isn't the true, correct, R.C. rite, then the ordination never happened. Therefore, if a man installed as a presbyter by the Novus Ordo were to subsequently wish to be ordained as a R.C. priest, it would be the first time were to occur. Thus, wouldn't it simply be an ordination and/or a consecration, rather than a repetition of an act already performed? The N.O. doesn't ordain men to offer the unbloody sacrifice of the true Mass for the expiation of sin. The N.O. installs men who are presiders over the assembly of the people.Delete
I think the terms conditional ordination and conditional consecration would apply more appropriately to those traditional groups that use the ordinal from 1961-1962, since they outwardly are trying to follow tradition and to do what the church has always done. This gets down to finer points, I know.
If you want fine points, let's consider the fact that their is no pope to definitely decide what is and isn't valid. We have moral certainty but not apodictic certainty, as in the case of Anglican orders.Delete
The Traditionalist bishop who confirmed me (I was confirmed in the Vatican 2 sect at age 13, three years before my conversion at age 16) used this reasoning to conditionally confirm me which has the Form of the sacrament begin "If you have not been confirmed..." to prevent any possibility of sacrilege. I'm morally certain I wasn't confirmed in the Vatican 2 sect, yet since the bishop used the conditional form, I was conditionally confirmed. The same is true in almost all cases of ordinations and consecrations---the conditional form is used making it a confitional ordination in at least that technical sense.
P.S. The Pontifical of 1962 is certainly valid. It did not touch on the matter/form.Delete
Ok, yes, agreed regarding the conditional form.Delete
In regard to not having a living Pope, isn't it the safest course of action to adhere to the pre-1955 Magisterium when the changes to Easter week were made or even better, pre-1950? In other words, until such time as a Catholic Pope reigns isn't it prudent to assume Pope Pius XII's Magisterium is what we follow? We've had over 1900 years of Magisterial decisions to guide us. We have apodictic certainty solely through some of the bishops ordained via Lefebvre, Thuc and others whose names I regretfully can't recall at the moment. I also think we can still safely seek out apostolic succession via the Ukrainian Catholic rite as well.
Yes, we adhere to the Magisterium as it was until 1958. Since the changes from 1955-58 also came from Pope Pius XII, they must be accepted. There are those that argue that because these changes led to noxious changes not anticipated by the Legislator, they no longe bind. I agree, yet I fully acknowledge all changes up to 1958 to have been true, valid, and fully Catholic. To say otherwise is to claim the Church can give that which is evil. The Indefectibiliy of the Church makes this impossible.Delete
Great article again! I have never heard about the Eastern Rite having valid sacraments. Is this true even today? I'm trying to figure out where I can get the sacraments. I travel all over the Midwest mainly Kansas, Iowa, Missouri and Nebraska. I wish I was more handy with computers, I would try to make an app that can locate this.ReplyDelete
Not the Eastern Rite (Vatican 2), Eastern Schismatics ( heretics, actually). Cliff, I would look on the Traditio site for their Mass Directory. Just google "traditio" and click on their Mass Directory. Avoid anything in actual unity with Francis (even if valid). If you send me your email in the comments, I will do the research for you, and email you back with an address that conceals my identity. Your email will not be published. By God's Grace, maybe you can get to a True Mass!Delete
If you're ever near Louisville KY
St.John the Baptist Catholic Church
452 North 26th St Louisville KY
Pre-1950 Holy Mass/Holy Week
Thuc line priest (Bishop McKenna/Des Lauriers line)
Sunday 10am 15 decade Latin rosary 8:30am
Confessions before Holy Mass
Mon-Fri 7:30am (usually)
I attend a Ukrainian Catholic parish. From what I understand, the priests and sacraments are valid. Although they are 'in communion' with Rome, they do not pray with the Francis, they pray for him. I'd love to find out whether the Ukrainian rite of ordination was changed after V2.
Anyone in actual communion with Francis is a heretic who, by that very fact, must accept the legitimacy and "doctrinal correctness" of the robber council Vatican 2. To be valid, while being in union with a heretic avails you nothing. To be effacacious, the Mass must be offered "in persona Ecclesia"--- in the person of the Church. You cannot receive valid sacraments outside the Church. Were this the case you could attend the Greek Orthodox heretical liturgy.Delete
Dear Introibo, I am now confused. Please sort me out. I am under the impression that a validly ordained satanic priest maintains his power of valid consecration of the host. I concluded that one would receive a valid, but hugely sacrilegious, communion at a black mass. However, you say "You cannot receive valid sacraments outside the Church." A satanic coven is definately outside the Church. Please clarify.Delete
Dear Dr. Lamb,Delete
My writing was not clear! You cannot receive Sacraments that are valid outside of the Church. In other words, the Greek Orthodox have valid Sacraments, but you are forbidden to receive them outside the True Church!
Understood. Many thanks. :)Delete
I don't visit here too often and just saw your reply about the Sacraments. Since the sacraments are valid, but perhaps not licit (?), doesn't the status of the church qualify as an 'emergency' for lack of a better term and therefore wouldn't God expect us to fulfill our Sunday obligation at a valid, even if not licit liturgy? Also, I have a question which you may not wish to answer here. From what 'line' is the priest who is ministering at Ave Maria Chapel? I ask only because I'm making the assumption you attend there?Delete
(A) Under no circumstances may a Traditionalist receive the sacraments (valid or not) from a non-Catholic minister except in danger of death when no True Priest is available.Delete
(B) I sometimes attend Ave Maria Chapel where Fr John Evangelista has been pastor since 6/29/08. He was ordained in 1962---prior to V2--- in Euorope by a Catholic diocesan bishop.
Once the pre-V2 priests are gone, are we to become 'home aloners'?
Never! See my post this coming Monday, 5/16/16.Delete