| From | Message |
Catholic
Guest
2/18/2003
13:19:45
|
 Subject: Traditional caholicism. Sedevacantism
IP: Logged
Message:
I'm Spanish, and I'm very interesting in Traditional Catholism. There is an authentic Traditional Catholic movement in the United States. I'm sedevacantist (I think that Holy See is vacant). In fact, for me the only coherent traditional catholicism is sedevacantism. If you know some sedevacantist, tell me, please. We could send messages. Excuse me for my very bad English.
|
Matteo
Guest
2/22/2003
09:22:51
| RE: Traditional caholicism. Sedevacantism
IP: Logged
Message:
Well there is the Society of St. Pius X, which is worldwide and uses the 1962 Roman Missal. There are also more traditional ones including the Society of St. Pius V, which uses the Roman Missal of 1954. There are also various independent churches that have the Mass according to the 1962 or 1954 Missal. The 1954 Missal would be the most authentic traditional Mass, as it does not have some of the Holy Week Masses altered, while the 1962 Missal does.
I am not sedevacantist but I know well of it.
|
Catholic
Guest
2/25/2003
14:09:43
| RE: Traditional caholicism. Sedevacantism
IP: Logged
Message:
Thank you for your answer. There are a lot of information about traditional catholicism in Internet. However, there isn't any sedevacantist church in Spain. There is the Society of St. Pius X. But, are there real problems between SSPX and sedevacantism? A sedevacantist priest told me that the Masses and sacraments of the Society are valid, but illicit. I don't know what I must believe.
|
Matteo
Guest
2/25/2003
15:28:24
| RE: Traditional caholicism. Sedevacantism
IP: Logged
Message:
Well it depends. The problem is as would be expected with sedevacantism there is a lack of central authority.
As I had with my previous message there is basically two groups of sedevacantists:
1. The 1962 Missal Sedevacantists (SSPX, other groups)
2. The 1954 Missal Sedevacantists (SSPV, other groups)
The SSPX is technically not sedevacantists as far as I know. If you visit their website they acknowledge Pope John Paul II, by which they would obviously not be sedevacantists. However they are generally classified as sedevacantists. They are more properly considered schismatic, and were excommunicated.
The SSPV is sedevacantist. They have no pope. Some of their priests belonged to SSPX, but left in order to celebrate Mass according to the 1954 Missal instead of the 1962 Missal. As stated before there are differences between the Missals, such as the 'dialogue Mass' and the like, and also Holy Week Masses.
I am not familiar with Spanish sedevacantist groups, but there are probably some. I only know of the ones in the US and Italy, and in Italy only vaguely.
If you are a true sedevacantist you would agree with the priest you mentioned.
What do you mean by sedevacantist church? Do you mean an organized group of churches that all adhere to sedevacantism. Generally, at least with my experience it is a rarity to see a group of sedevacantist churches united. Rather you might see one at random, which is unaffiliated with any other church.
Basically the beliefs of the sedevacantist churches are all the Church documents up to the end of Pope Pius XII papacy in 1958.
|
Catholic
Guest
2/27/2003
15:31:42
| RE: Traditional caholicism. Sedevacantism
IP: Logged
Message:
To classify SSPX as sedevacantist is strange. They aren't in obedience to John Paul II, but they acknowledge him, like you say. They weren't in negotiations with Rome on several ocassions.
The Congregation of Mary Inmaculate Queen, for example, is an explicit sedevacantist group, like SSPV. They have their principal headquarters in Spokane(United States).
What I mean by sedevacantist church isn't an organized group of churches. What I mean is a place of worship. The priest I mentioned told me that there isn't any sedevacantist catholic group in Spain. According to him, there aren't licit Masses or sacraments in Spain. This is a difficult situation. But, like you say, I must believe what the priest told me. I talked with this priest by e-mails. However, other sedevacantist priests have different opinions.
I know that the beliefs of the sedevacantist churches are all the Church documents up to the end of Pope Pius XII. I have read about the problems of Vatican II and posterior changes (false ecumenism, Novus Ordo Missae, religious liberty, heresies of the Code of Canon Law of 1983, etc.).
|
Catholic
Guest
2/27/2003
15:33:27
| RE: Traditional caholicism. Sedevacantism
IP: Logged
Message:
To classify SSPX as sedevacantist is strange. They aren't in obedience to John Paul II, but they acknowledge him, like you say. They weren't in negotiations with Rome on several ocassions.
The Congregation of Mary Inmaculate Queen, for example, is an explicit sedevacantist group, like SSPV. They have their principal headquarters in Spokane(United States).
What I mean by sedevacantist church isn't an organized group of churches. What I mean is a place of worship. The priest I mentioned told me that there isn't any sedevacantist catholic group in Spain. According to him, there aren't licit Masses or sacraments in Spain. This is a difficult situation. But, like you say, I must believe what the priest told me. I talked with this priest by e-mails. However, other sedevacantist priests have different opinions.
I know that the beliefs of the sedevacantist churches are all the Church documents up to the end of Pope Pius XII. I have read about the problems of Vatican II and posterior changes (false ecumenism, Novus Ordo Missae, religious liberty, heresies of the Code of Canon Law of 1983, etc.).
|
Matteo
Guest
2/27/2003
16:35:36
| RE: Traditional caholicism. Sedevacantism
IP: Logged
Message:
Yes, I know the SSPX is not sedevacantist. However sometimes they are grouped as sedevacantist.
Like you said, the beliefs of sedevacantists can vary. That is why it is important to be well read in pre-1958 Church documents. This variance can also cause different sedevacantists to not know or not acknowledge other sedevacantists.
|
Catholic
Guest
3/06/2003
12:59:23
| RE: Traditional caholicism. Sedevacantism
IP: Logged
Message:
Yes, it's important to be well read in pre-1958 Church documents. These documents can be interpretated in different ways to analize the situation of SSPX. Some sedevacantists (like the priest I mentioned) say that they are schismatics, because of they acknowledge John Paul II, and he is a false pope. Other sedevacantists say that SSPX is mistaken about John Paul II, but they aren't schismatics, and so their Masses and sacraments are valid and licit. The first position is surely right. Some traditionalist sects have their own popes (Pius XIII,for example), and all traditional catholics say that they are schismatics.
Traditional catholics' ideas about Rome must be clear, and I don't know if the ideas of SSPX are clear. However, Rome is powerful and the society in general is anti-catholic: so the unity of traditional catholics is neccesary. But the unity is difficult.
|
Peter Forrester
Guest
3/08/2003
13:48:28
| RE: Traditional caholicism. Sedevacantism
IP: Logged
Message:
Why are you a sedevacantist? It seems as if the sedevacantist rejection of Authority and attempt to return to a 'pure' form of Catholicism is in fact very Protestant. Perhaps that's why the United States -- an historically Protestant country -- has so many warring sedevacantist (and Protestant) sects, while Spain -- historically Catholic -- does not. The suggestion that the Catholic Church became illegitimate in the 1950s or 60s sounds like the old Protestant and Orthodox claims that the Church became illegitimate after the first 500 or 1000 years of its existence. And just like them, the sedevacantists believe they are the secret remnant of Christianity, i.e., the invisible Church. In each case, it sounds like the same Spirit of Rebellion is at work.
|
Roy F. Moore
Guest
3/19/2003
00:07:27
| RE: Traditional Catholicism. Sedevacantism
IP: Logged
Message:
The SSPX is not anti-Catholic in general. It is trying to get Rome to dust the cobwebs out of it's skull, so to speak. The Second Vatican Council was a disaster for the Church, so the SSPX is trying to keep Sacred Tradition alive,
including the "Old" Mass.
Mario Durksen is writing a multi-part series on why the "excommunication" of Lefevbre and the other bishops were not valid. The series isn't finished yet, but the currently written parts are very good and, to my mind, convincing.
I suggest you visit the site:
www.dailycatholic.com
and read what he has posted so far.
Thank you.
|
Traditionalist
Guest
3/20/2003
11:19:02
| RE: Traditional Catholicism. Sedevacantism
IP: Logged
Message:
Very interesting discussion. I commend you all for you sincere search for understanding the Catholic faith. If I may, I'd like to offer some comments.
It should be noted that sedevacantism is simply an opinion that the current Pope (and his predecessors) is not actually Pope - and, therefore, the seat of Peter is vacant. Their arguments on the surface are very convincing and well grounded. Furthermore, they base their arguments on observable facts. Up until recently, I thought that I might be a vacantist. However, while their arguments do make sense, the conclusions drawn from them are mistaken.
The basis for the vacantist argument lies in the belief that the Pope has "proven" himself a heretic because of certain public behaviors (e.g. kissing the Quran at an ecumenical gathering; partaking in worship with heretics, etc.). Now, we Catholics should be scandalized by such inappropriate and contrary actions. However, we must not - and cannot - judge the Pope a heretic based on these public behaviors. [Church teaching tells us as much, namely, that no one can judge the Pope]. Now, heresy can be of two sorts: material and formal. There is no proof that the Pope is guilty of either. So, while the vacantist are correct in their assessment of the current Church scandals created by Pope John Paul II and Vatican II, their conclusions are not. If we take the position that we have no Pope, and that the "Pope" currently in Rome is not a valid Pope, then everything he has done is invalid. This means that any Cardinals he has appointed are not really Cardinals. This is a problem because it is the Cardinals who elect a Pope. If there are no valid Cardinals then there could never be a Pope. This goes against Catholic teaching and tradition. So, you see, there are weaknesses to the vacantist position. It is because of this that Traditional Catholics must not attend Masses of sedevacantists.
The SSPX is not sedevacantist. They give allegiance to the Pope. They disagree with some of the Pope's actions, but they still accept him as Pope.
Dominus vobiscum.
|
Peter Forrester
Guest
3/22/2003
10:41:20
| RE: Traditional caholicism. Sedevacantism
IP: Logged
Message:
et cum spiritu tuo... exactly. Thanks for your insights.
|
Catholic
Guest
3/23/2003
13:02:10
| RE: Traditional caholicism. Sedevacantism
IP: Logged
Message:
The following text is an very good exposition of the sedevacantist position, by Bishop Mark Pivarunas. Perhaps this text could be interesting for you. I think that it's very interesting for all catholics, sedevacantists or not sedevacantists. This text is in www.cmri.org, the site of the Congregation of Mary Inmaculate Queen, which I mentioned. CMRI is a traditional catholic organization. They have their principal headquarters in Spokane(United States).
Sedevacantism
By Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas, CMRI
Sedevacantism is the theological position of those traditional Catholics who most certainly believe in the papacy, papal infallibility and the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, and yet do not recognize John Paul II as a legitimate successor of Peter in the primacy. In other words, they do not recognize John Paul II as a true pope. The word sedevacantism is a compound of two Latin words which together mean “the Chair is vacant.” Despite the various arguments raised against this position — that it is based on a false expectation that the pope can do no wrong, or that it is an emotional reaction to the problems in the Church — the sedevacantist position is founded on the Catholic doctrines of the infallibility and the indefectibility of the Church and on the theological opinion of the great Doctor of the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine.
As an introduction to this article, let the traditional Catholic first ask himself why he is a traditional Catholic. Why does he not attend the Novus Ordo Mass? Why does he reject the teachings of Vatican Council II on Religious Liberty and Ecumenism? Why does he reject the new code of Canon Law (1983) in which under certain circumstances schismatics and heretics may, without an abjuration of their errors and a profession of the Catholic Faith, be administered by a Catholic priest the Sacraments of Penance, Extreme Unction, and Holy Eucharist? If the traditional Catholic answers the first question correctly, he would state quite simply that the New Mass is without a doubt a danger to his faith and that due to the radical changes in the Offertory and Consecration, it is questionable whether transubstantiation even takes place. In answer to the second question, the traditional Catholic would properly state that the teachings found in Vatican II decrees of Religious Liberty and Ecumenism have been condemned by previous popes, in particular by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors. Lastly, to the third question, the traditional Catholic would surely answer that such a law in the new code can never be considered as true and binding legislation since the sacraments would be sacrilegiously administered to heretics and schismatics.
How appropriately did the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on the occasion of his Suspension a divinis by Paul VI write the following reflection on June 29, 1976:
“That the Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive.
“This Conciliar Church is schismatic, because it has taken as a basis for its updating, principles opposed to those of the Catholic Church, such as the new concept of the Mass expressed in numbers 5 of the Preface to (the decree) Missale Romanum and 7 of its first chapter, which gives the assembly a priestly role that it cannot exercise; such likewise as the natural — which is to say divine — right of every person and of every group of persons to religious freedom.
“This right to religious freedom is blasphemous, for it attributes to God purposes that destroy His Majesty, His Glory, His Kingship. This right implies freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, and all the Masonic freedoms.
“The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.”
Let the traditional Catholic, especially the members of the Society of St. Pius X, ask themselves to what extent have the Pope, bishops, priest and laity adhered to this new Church which would, as Archbishop Lefebvre reflected, separate themselves from the Catholic Church. John Paul II completely adheres to the Conciliar Church. He enforces the Novus Ordo Mass and false teachings of Vatican II. He promulgated the New Code of Canon Law (1983). He has boldly practiced false ecumenism and heretical religious indifferentism in Assisi, Italy, on October 27, 1986, by the atrocious convocation of all the false religions of the world to pray to their false gods for world peace!
As unpleasant as this subject may be, traditional Catholics are confronted by the terrible and burning questions:
Is the Conciliar Church the Catholic Church?
Is John Paul II, as the head of the Conciliar Church, a true pope?
The sedevacantist would unhesitatingly and unequivocally say no.
To believe otherwise, to answer yes to the above questions, would be to imply that the Catholic Church has failed in its purpose, that the Church of Christ is not infallible and indefectible, that the Pope is not the rock upon which Christ founded His Church, that the promise of Christ to be with His Church “all days even to the consummation of the world” and that the special assistance of the Holy Ghost, have failed the Church — conclusions which no traditional Catholic could ever maintain. Consider the following quote from Vatican Council I (1870):
“For the fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following closely in the footsteps of their predecessors, made this solemn profession: ’The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true Faith. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ Who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” (Matt. 16:18), should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied, and its teaching kept holy.’ ...for they fully realized that this See of St. Peter always remains untainted by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of his disciples, ’I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and do thou, when once thou has turned again, strengthen thy brethren’ (Luke 22:32).”
Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical Satis Cognitum, taught that the Teaching Authority of the Church can never be in error:
“If (the living magisterium) could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error.”
How can a traditional Catholic on one hand reject the New Mass, the heretical teachings of Vatican Council II, and the New Code of Canon Law (1983), and on the other hand, continue to recognize as pope the very one who officially promulgates and enforces these errors?
To consider yet another question, is the faith and government of the traditional Catholic the same as John Paul II and his Conciliar Church? Do traditional Catholics believe the same doctrines as John Paul II and his Conciliar Church on the New Mass, false ecumenism, and religious liberty?
Are traditional Catholics subject to the local hierarchy and ultimately to Rome?
Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Mystical Body of Christ, taught:
“It follows that those who are divided in faith and government cannot be living in the one Body such as this, and cannot be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”
Are traditional Catholics united or divided in faith and government with the Conciliar Church?
The sedevacantist honestly recognizes that his faith is actually not the same as John Paul II and his Conciliar Church. He recognizes that he is actually not subject and obedient to John Paul II. As a traditional Catholic, the sedevacantist believes and professes all the teachings of the Catholic Church, and this profession of the true Faith includes a rejection of the false teachings of Vatican II (“all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive” — Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, June 29, 1976).
During the first prayer of the Canon of the traditional Mass which begins Te igitur, the priest in normal times would recite una cum papa nostro N. (one with our pope N.). What significance does this short phrase convey — una cum, one with? One in faith, one in government, one in the Mass and Sacraments — united — this is the significance! Can a traditional priest honestly recite in the Canon of the Mass that he is una cum John Paul II? In what is he una cum John Paul II? In the Conciliar teachings, in government, in the official New Mass and Sacraments — is he actually una cum?
One last consideration on this subject of sedevacantism is the manner in which all these things have come to pass. When did they take place? How did they take place? This is an area in which sedevacantists themselves differ. Some hold that the papal elections were invalid based on the Bull of Pope Paul IV in 1559, Cum ex apostolatus:
“If ever at any time it appears that... the Roman Pontiff has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy before assuming the papacy, the assumption, done even with the unanimous consent of all the Cardinals, stands null, invalid and void; nor can it be said to become valid, or be held in any way legitimate, or be thought to give to such ones any power of administering either spiritual or temporal matters; but everything said, done and administered by them lacks all force and confers absolutely no authority or right on anyone; and let such ones by that very fact (eo ipso) and without any declaration required to be deprived of all dignity, place, honor, title, authority, office, and power.”
Some sedevacantists quote the Code of Canon Law (1917) in Canon 188 No. 4:
“All offices shall be vacant ipso facto (without a declaration required) by tacit resignation... #4 by public defection from the Catholic Faith.”
Others hold the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine in De Romano Pontifice (Chapter XXX):
“"The fifth opinion (regarding a heretical pope) therefore is true; a pope who is a manifest heretic by that fact (per se) ceases to be pope and head (of the Church), just as he by that fact ceases to be a Christian (sic) and a member of the body of the Church. This is the judgment of all the early Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”
Pope Innocent III as quoted by the theologian Billot in his Tract. de Ecclesia Christi, p. 610:
“The faith is necessary for me to such an extent that, having God as my only judge in other sins, I could however be judged by the Church for sins I might commit in matters of faith.”
Suffice it to say, the issue of the pope is a difficult one, an unpleasant one, and a frightful one; yet it is a necessary and important issue which cannot be avoided.
In conclusion, let it not be said that the sedevacantist rejects the papacy, the primacy, or the Catholic Church. On the contrary it is because of his belief in the papacy, the primacy, the infallibility and the indefectibility of the Catholic Church that he rejects John Paul II and his Conciliar Church.
For the sedevacantist, the Catholic Church cannot and has not failed. The great apostasy predicted by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Thessalonians has taken place:
“"Let no one deceive you in any way, for the day of the Lord will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and is exalted above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sits in the temple of God and gives himself out as if he were God.... And now you know what restrains him, that he may be revealed in his proper time. For the mystery of iniquity is already at work; provided only that he who is at present restraining it, does still restrain, until he is gotten out of the way. And then the wicked one will be revealed...” (2 Thess. 2:3-8).
Who is this one “who is at present restraining it... until he is gotten out of the way. And then the wicked one will be revealed”? Perhaps Pope Leo XIII has the answer in his Motu Proprio of September 25, 1888, when he wrote in his invocation to St. Michael:
“These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.”
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 CMRI
|
Catholic
Guest
5/03/2003
16:26:56
| RE: Traditional caholicism. Sedevacantism
IP: Logged
Message:
Today, Karol Wojtyla visits Spain. This false pope, this false prophet, this modernist, visit this country. I´d like to reaffirm my Faith in authentic Catholicism, and so express again my sedevacantist position.
|
napnip
Guest
5/25/2003
10:43:20
| RE: Traditional caholicism. Sedevacantism
IP: Logged
Message:
Question: Are sedevacantists sometimes called Tridentine Catholics? I've heard that term mentioned before in reference to the traditionalist movement.
|
Traditionalist
Guest
5/25/2003
14:41:11
| RE: Traditional caholicism. Sedevacantism
IP: Logged
Message:
The term "Tridentine" would refer to any Catholic who remains loyal to the Latin Mass. Now, you are right in saying that the term has been used in reference to the Traditional Catholic movement. However, we should not conclude that a "Tridentine" Catholic is a Traditional Catholic. You mentioned the sedevacantists. Although sedevacantist remain loyal to the Latin Mass ("Tridentine" Catholics), he can not be said to remain loyal to the Teachings of the Church (Traditional Catholicism). Why? Because a sedevacantist rejects Pope John Paul II as Pope. The Church's teachings on the succession and authority of the Pope is clear. In order to believe as they do, the sedevacantist must go against Church Teaching. This is not in keeping with Tradition. [This breaking away from Tradition makes the sedevacantist no different than the Novus Ordinarians].
By contrast, a Traditional Catholic will acknowledge that Pope John Paul II commits errors, and will urge the Pope to abide by Traditional Church Teachings. [We must continue to pray for our current Pope]. For the Traditional Catholic, the Chair of Peter does not become vacant. There is nothing in Church Law that would lead us to conclude thusly. [We Traditional Catholics should also pray for our sedevacantist brethren].
|
Peter Forrester
Guest
5/26/2003
09:46:51
| RE: Traditional caholicism. Sedevacantism
IP: Logged
Message:
Traditionalist, I have only recently given the so-called Traditionalist position within the Church much thought, and especially in the last week with the gift of a Roman parish to the Bulgarian Orhtodox Church, a schismatic community. Is that the kind of "error" you meant? As a Novus Ordo Catholic that gesture by the Holy Father is fundamentally unintelligible to me.
|
Will S.
Guest
5/27/2003
00:13:10
| RE: Traditional caholicism. Sedevacantism
IP: Logged
Message:
Traditionalist:
"...a Traditional Catholic will acknowledge that Pope John Paul II commits errors..."
Really? Are you suggesting that the Pope is not infallible? Isn't that considered heresy for a Roman Catholic to believe the Pope is not infallible?
BTW, can someone explain to me, if the "Holy See" is vacant, according to this Sedevacantist tradition, does that mean there is no Pope, or does that mean there's a "secret" Pope? What does that imply and entail?
What does a Novus Ordinarian believe? Are they heretics from a Traditional Catholic perspective; I assume the Sedevacantists are also considered heretics from the Traditional Catholic perspective; am I right?
|
Traditionalist
Guest
5/27/2003
13:59:57
| RE: Traditional caholicism. Sedevacantism
IP: Logged
Message:
The doctrine of papal infallibility is one of the most misinterpreted and misunderstood teachings of the Church. The Pope is infallible in his teachings when speaking from the Chair of Peter.
"The infallible teaching authority of the pope is circumscribed by the necessity that any extraordinary dogmatic pronouncement meet each and every element of the Council's definition that the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra only when:
1) in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2) in virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority,
3) he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals,
4) to be held by the whole Church.
The point is that such error has been taught by a pope only in a private capacity, not in his office as Roman pontiff, not in the name of the Church, not by Apostolic authority, and not with the purpose of imposing the teaching on the Church as a matter of faith. The pope as a private person can turn his back on the Tradition of the Church, and he can err in so doing, but no pope has ever infallibly imposed such a teaching on the Church as a matter of faith." - www.traditio.com.
Therefore, when the Pope kisses the Koran, or engages in Oecumenism as he did in Assissi, then he is in error. This is the kind of error I was referring to in my previous posting. I apologize for any confusion.
|
Will S.
Guest
5/27/2003
14:48:06
| RE: Traditional caholicism. Sedevacantism
IP: Logged
Message:
Ah, okay. I believe I understand the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility better, Traditionalist; thank you.
Can anyone answer my previous questions about Novus Ordo, Sedevacantism, etc? (See my previous posting.)
|
Peter Forrester
Guest
5/28/2003
22:05:38
| RE: Traditional caholicism. Sedevacantism
IP: Logged
Message:
Will S.,
Before the Second Vatican Council, Catholics in Western Europe (and in their [former] colonies) celebrated Mass according to a particular rite formulated in late antiquity and definitively set in the sixteenth century; it's called variously the Tridentine or Pius V Rite (after Trent, where the great counter-reformation council was held, and Pius V, the pope at the time). In the 1960s, following the Second Vatican Council, the main rite of Western Catholicism was considerably altered (e.g., different theological emphases) and innovations were permitted (e.g., vernacular language, leader facing the rest of the people, etc.); the new rite is called the Novus Ordo or Paul VI Rite (that is, the New Order rite; Paul VI was pope at the time). Among faithful Catholics there are some who object to the new rite; they're called traditionalists. Those who accept the new rite are obviously Novus Ordo Catholics. Catholics are permitted to hold either view.
However, there are some extreme "traditionalists" (the sedevacantists) who think the Catholic Church was hijacked by satanic agents in 1958 who committed many heinous acts, prime among them being the Second Vatican Council and changing the rite of Mass; these traditionalists have left the Catholic Church and have a thousand theories, some claiming there is no pope at all, and others that he lives in Spokane, WA. Honestly, it reminds me of the theories among some of the "Left Behind" devotees. These "sedevacantists" are an extremely small group of sects.
|
Will S.
Guest
5/29/2003
01:45:25
| RE: Traditional caholicism. Sedevacantism
IP: Logged
Message:
Peter Forrester:
Thanks for the clarifications.
"Among faithful Catholics there are some who object to the new rite; they're called traditionalists. Those who accept the new rite are obviously Novus Ordo Catholics. Catholics are permitted to hold either view."
Does that mean that each type of mass is permissable, or only the different viewpoints regarding which mass one prefers are permissable? If the former (I'm assuming that's the case), is it up to each parish priest to decide, or is it done at the diocese or archdiocese level?
"some claiming there is no pope at all, and others that he lives in Spokane, WA."
Bizarre...
|
Peter Forrester
Guest
6/01/2003
21:55:30
| RE: Traditional caholicism. Sedevacantism
IP: Logged
Message:
Both western rites, old and new, are permissible. All parishes can celebrate Mass according to the new rite. However, bishops must grant permission for parishes to use the old rite with its respective prayers, calendar (of holy days), etc. This is rarely done; in Boston, for example, there is one sanctioned Tridentine Rite parish.
It should be pointed out that the Catholic Church, besides the western or roman rites, also has a set of eastern rites which Catholic parishes in Eastern Europe (e.g. the Ukraine) and the Middle East use to celebrate liturgies. The largest of these is the Byzantine Rite which corresponds very closely to Eastern Orthodox liturgies, though the hierarchy and people of these eastern rites are of course in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, unlike the Orthodox.
|
Will S.
Guest
6/02/2003
03:52:46
| RE: Traditional caholicism. Sedevacantism
IP: Logged
Message:
"It should be pointed out that the Catholic Church, besides the western or roman rites, also has a set of eastern rites which Catholic parishes in Eastern Europe (e.g. the Ukraine) and the Middle East use to celebrate liturgies. The largest of these is the Byzantine Rite which corresponds very closely to Eastern Orthodox liturgies, though the hierarchy and people of these eastern rites are of course in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, unlike the Orthodox."
Ah, yes; I've heard about the clashes in Western Canada a century ago between Ukrainian Catholics and Ukrainian Orthodox, sometimes resulting in small-scale violence...
|
Catholic
Guest
6/02/2003
15:38:13
| RE: Traditional caholicism. Sedevacantism
IP: Logged
Message:
Response to napnip: Yes, there are sedevacantists who are called Tridentine Catholics. In fact, this is logic. Only the traditional catholics accept the teachings of Council of Trent and Tridentine Mass. And the only coherent traditional catholics are the sedevacantists, because of they don't acknowledge false popes, they don't acknowledge false Churchs (like Conciliar Church). New Ordinarians are heretics. Their worship is invalid, and it isn't the Catholic Mass of all times and places.
The Holy See is vacant. The last "popes" are formal heretics, and there isn't any "secret Pope"(however, some catholics say this, but they are very few). The text "Sedevacantism", by Bishop Pivarunas (which I have copies here -3/23/2003) explains the sedevacantist position very well. The Sede Vacante possibility is contained in Tradition, for example in "Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio" (by Pope Paul IV). SSPX even admits sedevacantism like a private opinion. Mons. Lefevbre said that this possibility could happen, at least in theory.
Finally, there is a very interesting debate between two theologians about sedevacantist position (one of them supports sedevacantist position, and the other rejects it). This debate is in "www.traditionalmass.org"("Sedevacantism:Debate with Fr. Harrison").
|
Will S.
Guest
6/03/2003
02:31:42
| RE: Traditional caholicism. Sedevacantism
IP: Logged
Message:
So, "Catholic", what is your position - if the Holy See is vacant, do you mean to say that God permits His church to be without an earthly leader at present? I have no problem believing such, since I'm a Protestant, but I'd have imagined such a view would be difficult for a self-identified Roman Catholic to hold.
|
Peter Forrester
Guest
6/07/2003
09:22:29
| RE: Traditional caholicism. Sedevacantism
IP: Logged
Message:
Yes, Catholic, I share Will S.'s questions. As a Catholic but from a Calvinist background I hear Protestant overtones in statements like, we "don't acknowledge false popes, [we] don't acknowledge false Churchs (like Conciliar Church)." With the pope and bishops out of the picture, who or what is your authority? A collection of ancient and medieval documents? Sounds vaguely familiar . . .
Also I question "the Catholic Mass of all times and places" which you mention, and by which you mean the Tridentine Mass. It's clearly not the Catholic Mass of THIS time and place. And even if you counter that the vast majority of Catholics and indeed the visible structure of the Catholic Church isn't REALLY Catholic (sounds weirdly Protestant again), wouldn't you admit that even the Tridentine Mass had a beginning several hundred years AFTER the founding of the Church? What were Catholics doing for the first few hundred years? I wonder whether paleo-sedevacantists would've branded Pius V a heretic for changing the traditional Mass of his day and formalizing it as the Tridentine Mass which you hold up as a gift without a history directly from God's hand.
|
|
|