Cited in extenso from here:
The Recusant : The Recusant: Twelve Questions for Sedevacantists
https://thecatacombs.org/printthread.php?tid=1272
And answered after quotes:
1. Sedevacantism does not appear to have been anywhere in evidence until the early 1970s, and we are unaware of there having been one single priest who thought that Paul VI was not Pope until around 1970, or possibly the late 1960s at the very earliest. We are unaware of a single example of a priest charging John XXIII with being an anti-Pope while he was alive or leaving his name out of the Mass. At the same time we are told that Mass offered “una cum” an anti-Pope is not pleasing to God. If it is true that the last true Pope was Pius XII, does that mean there no was true sacrifice being offered in a way pleasing to God for some 10 to 15 years? Did God really leave the entire earth bereft of this true sacrifice for ten or more years?
Both Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church in 1945 and (according to what I have read about his later claims) Michel Collin took in 1950 the decision to not consider Pius XII as an authority binding on the faithful. Obviously they did also not recognise his supposed successor as a Pope obliging in conscience the faithful, John XXIII. In the case of Brazilian Apostolic, they are Episcopalians of a sort, namely insofar as they consider a patriarch enough, and do not have a pope, and in the case of Clémory, Michel Collin proclaimed himself as Pope, claiming authority from a private revelation.
Note very well, Pope Michael has not done the same thing, since he condemns mysticalism, but was elected by an emergency conclave. However, his answer would likely be, that in 1958 there was at least no unity around the Antipope John XXIII.
One can answer in more general terms, being honestly mistaken on where the papacy is, does not make your Holy Mass automatically displeasing to God. As far as I know, a quote by St. Vincent Ferrier says, you can please God if you have the wrong Pope, but not if you don't care which Pope is the right one.
And this situation of naive innocence vanishes when things pile up over and above just wrong person in papacy, like New Mass, like consistent heretical exegesis of the council in more than one episcopate, like as per even later, endorsing Evolution belief as by a new act of the magisterium judging after the never occurring debate between opponents and adherents of Adam descending physically from non-human beings.
2. If sedevacantism is not just a theory, but is a binding conclusion, why do we not hear about it in the decades/centuries before the council? If on the other hand it is a theory, is it not in one sense yet another previously unheard-of, post-conciliar novelty?
Because it could be a binding conclusion from factors not heard of back then?
Or because we do hear of it, like Middle Ages endorsing the theory that the Church will be usurped in the end times? In that sense, the answer could be from a disciplinary decision on Vth Lateran Council, forbidding "date setting" on the Apocalypse.
3. If sedevacantism is merely a question of applying Catholic principles (Sanborn) or merely a simple matter of logic, something that you just have to think about clearly enough (Cekada), why aren’t we all sedevacantists? Why aren’t we almost all, or even mostly all? Is it reasonable (or Catholic?) to propose or even to imply that everyone who is not a sedevacantist is either ignorant or of bad will?
It's like asking whether it's reasonable that everyone who refuses the FSSPX is either ignorant or of bad will.
Ignorance in intricate questions and unprecedented situations is not unheard of.
4. If sedevacantism is a probable or reasonable conclusion, how can it be that virtually no sedevacantists agree with one another, even about non-theological matters? Why is it that even those who have not fallen out with each other and who work together (e.g. Cekada & Sanborn) nevertheless do not agree (e.g. ‘pure’ sedevacantism vs. sede-privationism; “CMRI can be collaborated with” (Cekada) vs. “CMRI should be disbanded” (Sanborn), etc.)
Obviously, since not giving full obedience to post-Vatican II Popes, FSSPX falls into the spectrum of mutually exclusive positions.
5. If “Do-not-attend-non-sedevacantist-Masses!” is an obvious or reasonable proposition, why is it that its main proponents previously mocked this very same proposition, calling it “Follow me or die!” Catholicism?
I do not think that Pope Michael ever mocked the position, and he forbids attendance both at FSSPX and at Sede masses, while holding Novus Ordo ones as invalid.
6. If it is so clear and obvious that the whole Church has been ruled by anti-Popes for fifty-plus years, with no possibility of relief anywhere to be seen, why no mention of this at Fatima? Why no mention of it at Quito? Why did Padre Pio have nothing to say on the subject: did he think it not important enough? Why not one single “old-guard” Cardinal (Siri, Stickler, Oddi, etc.), bishop or even Vatican Monsignor to have admitted as much on his death-bed or in his posthumously-published memoires?
You speak of "on his deathbed" or "in his posthumously published memoires", which contrasts with public and uncontrovertible citation. Such claims would be considered "controverted" or "controversial".
For Siri we do have controverted claims, for instance that he was elected, in 1958, in 1962, or on both occasions, and that he resigned under duress (like extertion by threat of persecution) and that therefore Roncalli or Montini or both consciously usurped the papacy belonging to him.
In case you consider this as a conspiracy theory, so would the claim of a death bed comment or the posthumous memoires be considered.
In the case of posthumous memoires published under the administration of antipopes, such comments would arguably be censored.
7. If the matter is not quite as absolutely black-and-white or clear cut as we are led to believe, is it not both prudent and reasonable to hold on only to what is known and can be trusted, what has been tried and tested from before the Council, and exclude any novelty; to leave the fascinating theoretical questions on hold until better times when we may examine them at leisure?
It would be more prudent for Adam not to bite the fruit, but that is no longer an option. Recognise and resist, over decades, not just over one wrong comment or decision, is also a novelty, or a Western version of non-papal Eastern ecclesiology, like what is sometimes attributed to Celtic Church.
8. What are the fruits of sedevacantism?
One of them is Orthopapism. I heard of it bc ridiculed as such by Fr. Schmidberger, I believe it was. Now, it seems he gave a list of 15 to 20 "sedevacantist Popes" but since then most have cleared up. Three claimants remain, to my knowledge : Pope Michael, pseudo-heirs of Michel Collin, the heir to the Palmarian claim. There may be more, but many have cleared up. Linus II has stepped back. Pius XIII has died, no heir. Iglesia Católica Remanente has been recently claimed as being a media hoax. Little Pebble is or was recently in prison. It is no longer the needle in the haystack, if even the 15 to 20 list could be likened to that.
Where are the sedevacantist soup kitchens?
Are the fruits of the FSSPX soup kitchens all that good? I became known to the one outside St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, and this may have contributed to that parish, its editors (at least one known who assists their masses, Francis Bergeron is editor of Présent, a Catholic and Right Wing daily), book sellers and edition students have been discouraged from editing my work.
Where is the sedevacantist League for the Kingship of Christ?
Has that league produced any legislation? Outlawed abortion anywhere?
Where are all the sedevacantist distributists?
Or those in St. Nicolas du Chardonnet? I have stated myself as distributist and been taken for a Communist.
Why are sedevacantist chapels generally filled with supporters of democracy and capitalism, who hear nothing from their priest with which they could disagree?
I have heard of sedes who were national socialists.
Where are the fruits of forty years of sedevacantist missionary activity in third-world countries all over the world?
When missionary activity of Catholics and inactivity of Protestants was an argument, the Protestants in question were not small sects, but bigger ones, like having whole countries or large portions of such. Sedes do not have as many adherents, orthopapists even fewer, and therefore have less resources to do mission with.
9. If everything was 100% perfect in the Church right up until 1958, how do we account for the revolution of Vatican II apparently coming out of nowhere? Did it really have no roots, no precursors, no avant-garde?
I'd consider precursors as, on the one hand, passivity of Popes, and on the other hand, apostasies of episcopacies, notably French or at least Parisian Evolutionists.
If, on the other hand, the rot does go back beyond Vatican II, and if in fact things were not entirely as they ought to have been in the decades before the council, does this not seem to indicate that Gloriously Reigning Popes can make errors of judgment, scandalous decisions, cause large numbers of souls to lose the Faith and deny our Lord like St. Peter?
Passively, or by bad example, certainly. Actively, by supporting directly error, not really.
How do we explain Pius XI giving his full and enthusiastic support to the League of Nations and sending a personal note of congratulation to the second Spanish Republic?
As to the Spanish question, Pius XI was at least later supporting Franco. As to League of Nations, the papacy served as such in Middle Ages : a Pope excommunicated an Emperor, until he backed down from trying to conquer Denmark.
How do we explain the failure of the 19th century Popes to use their full authority to comprehensively condemn Charles Darwin and his ideas?
I think there was a Council in Cologne condemning Darwin and a few related ideas, like Old Earth.
How do we account for the Church’s teaching on usury not being taught or enforced for some 200 years?
There is a difference between passive tolerance of an error and active support of it, as if it were truth.
Or the condemnation of Galileo being secretly ignored and, to all practical purposes, overturned?
There is a difference between passive tolerance of an error and active support of it. Now, you get an active support of it on doctrinal level in "three last Popes" according to those who accept "papacies" of Wojtyla, Ratzinger and Bergoglio. CEC.
10. Why is there no unanimous opinion among theologians on the question of a heretical Pope? Why is there not one example in the history of the Church of a Pope leaning towards heresy being threatened with the loss of his office, and why does Sacred Scripture uphold so strongly the keeping of office by heretical Sovereign Pontiffs of the Old Testament?
The threats of "withdrawing obedience" would be more properly understood to be threats of not treating someone as Pope than as threats of Recognise and Resist.
11. In Hell, those responsible for the damnation of so many souls because of their elevated office will burn as Popes, Cardinals, Bishops and Priests. This is called the Principle of Authority or responsibility. Our ancestors used to represent hell with a lot of clergy in it, why should it be different now, as the damage caused by them is far greater than the mostly moral scandal that they were giving in the past? “Eveque, c'est par toi que je meurs” said St. Joan of Arc to Bishop Cauchon. “Bishop it is by thee that I die”. God ascribes a precise culprit for whatever damage is done, as showed in the prophets of the Old Testament or in Matthew XXIII. If pope Francis is just a charlatan, if he is just a con man, a joker, a clown, but not really responsible, he would get just a clowny spank. If he and his six predecessors do not really bear the burden of responsibility of the Apostasy of Nations, since they are not really true Popes, who does bear this responsibility?
A fake Pope stealing a responsibility not his, will get as punished as a Pope mishandling, or rather more, since if the man were really Pope, some time the mishandling would have to stop. And he would get less punished.
For instance, John XXII actually did back down and admit that the Saints enjoy the Beatific vision and that that means seeing God.
As for a real Bishop or Pope killing a body by bad judgement (Cauchon) or a soul by bad example (might have been the case with Alexander VI), neither of these are part of the unbroken ordinary magisterium of a Pope or of all the bishops in communion with him. Alexander VI did not teach that it is OK to alllow one's son and daughter to handle poisons, he only was unable to stop them in his own case (despite being first policeman in the Papal states where they resided) and Cauchon was in communion with Pope Martin V, but not all bishops in communion with Martin V supported the wrongful trial.
12. Is it not the case that the general idea of sedevacantism has a certain appeal, it is easier to summarise to non-Catholic or non-Traditional friends and relations, and that it appears to offer a simple response to the whole painful crisis?
Well, yes.
Ought this not to put us on our guard, knowing what we do about human nature?
Well, no. Intricacy of an answer is not a guarantee of its being true or correct.
Equally, does not experience show that for both laity and priests, “becoming a sedevacantist” is not infrequently followed by a slackening of morals, standards of dress or behaviour, a weakening of general fervour and in particular a weakening of the counter-cultural and apostolic spirit? Once again, ought this not to put us on our guard?
Countercultural and apostolic is not formally the same. They can go together, but have some independence. Fervour can be overdone, so a slackening would be correct. I heard of Catholics in SWitzerland (where Écône is) who say "one shouldn't read Mickey Mouse, because it is entirely secular" which seems quite a lot of unnecessary fervour. If one said one should not read only Mickey Mouse, I'd obviously agree.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Sts John and Paul
26.VI.2021
PS, His Holiness will also go over the twelve questions, and he straight away added two points on QQ 4 and 6:
4. Sedeprivationism is more like recognize and resist than sedevacantism. Sedprivationists want the same thing recognize and resist, the conversion of Bergoglio. They differ on what authority he has now. Of course, if he must convert, then he is not Catholic and therefore not Pope.
6. Quito, Ecuador: Fourth Meaning: Then the Church will go through a dark night for lack of a Prelate and Father to watch over it with love, gentleness, strength and prudence and numbers of priests will lose the spirit of God, thus placing their souls in great danger. It may be in the Third Secret, which would be clearer in 1960.
PPS, "Wojtyla, Ratzinger and Bergoglio. CEC." Excuse my French. Literally. CEC = Catéchisme de l'Église Catholique. In English it is of course CCC = Catechism of the Catholic Church. Not that the title is appropriate./HGL
No comments:
Post a Comment