Joseph Moreaux: Arguing Sedevacantism
I spent 8 month as a sedevacantist, and was very convinced of its position and tried earnestly to convert all my friends and family into it. In that time, I debated with several apologists regarding the theory, and it was through the help of Robert Sungenis and writings from Christopher Ferrara, as well as studies on infalliblity and heresy, in particular which helped me see the light at the end of the tunnel. Now that I am happily no longer a sedevacantist, I want to share with you some tips on what to avoid and what to stress on when arguing with one. It is very to resort to straw man arguments with any position, especially sedevacantism since the theory is so badly misunderstood by many apologists. Unfortunately, what held me in sedevacantism was the misrepresentations given to me by these apologists I dialogued with. Upset by their obvious penchant for straw man argumentation, I was driven even further into sedevacantism. This can happen in almost any situation. If a Protestant tells a Catholic that Catholicism is wrong because it promotes worship to Mary and statues, and because it teaches that we can work our way to heaven apart from grace, and that Jesus is crucified again and again in the Mass. They will resort to emotionalism and say such idiotic statements as, "Wasn't Jesus' death enough for you? Is not his sacrifice enough?" Or how about, "The Bible says to worship God alone! And you Catholics pray to the Virgin Mary and have these devotions for her. You take away from the worship due to God alone, and you worship Mary!" How many Catholics have been nauseated which such pointless arguments? Obviously, the Protestant does not understand Catholic doctrine. If the Catholic knows his faith well enough, such babble will only entice him more in his faith rather than deteriorate it. The same holds true for sedevacantists. Believe it or not, sedevacantism as a theory is a growing movement within the traditionalist faction of the Catholic Church. Having met personally and befriending many of them, this is the usual way they ended up within the theory. It goes something usually like this: — They were raised in the "Novus Ordo." Growing up, they studied the faith and were effective apologists against Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Protestants. They loved their faith. Then, there came a time when they realized all the liberal abuses going on in the Church. After much prayer and study, they came to realize that something was definitely wrong in the Church today and so a return to tradition was the sure way to go (now, at this point, I would emphasize everything is going good. But here is where it can get haywire, as it did for me). They began attending Tridentine Masses and became more and more upset with the Novus Ordo liturgy. They began realizing that John Paul II did things that were so scandalous, it was unforgivable. They began to question just how it was that the Church had fallen the way it had: a Pope who seems to be an apostate, and a liturgy that is so infected with liberal abuse, and a world of Catholics who largely were content with the way things were. They realized that the words of consecration in the Novus Ordo were different from the Tridentine. They realized that the hierarchy based much of their liberal innovations on their understanding of Vatican II. They realized that Roncalli, Montini, and Wojtyla all taught heresies and allowed modernism to spread. They concluded, based on their understanding of the Code of Canon Law and teachings of saints and doctors, that these men lost their offices through heresy. Thus, Vatican II was wrong. The Novus Ordo was invalid. The modern church wasn't the true church but a different religion altogether. Thus, out comes the sedevacantist.
Now, of course, that was a capsulized version of most of the personal testimonies, but it is a general consensus of how it all began and grew. The above applies very much to what happened to me. When a Catholic comes to this conclusion, it certainly does not help when they seek for guidance and instead are given straw-man arguments. They fall deeper and deeper into sedevacantism.
Now, for those people reading this and still not understanding fully what the term sedevacantist means or entails, I will endeavor to explain it to you so that you know fully what you are up against. First, you can click on the link in this webpage
What Is Sedevacantism? by Bishop Mark Pivarunas to get an overall coherent definition.
Quoting from sedevacantist sources themselves, below are some quotes on what sedevacantism is.
"One of the essential properties of the Catholic Church is her indefectibility. This means among other things, that her teaching is 'immutable and always remaining the same.' (St. Ignatius of Antioch). It is impossible for her to contradict her own teaching. Further, another essential property of Christ's Church is her infallibility. This does not apply only to rare ex cathedra papal pronouncements like those defining the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Infalliblity also extends to the Church's universal disciplinary laws. A recognition on one hand that the post Vatican II hierarchy has officially sanctioned errors and evils, and a consideration on the other, of the Church's essential properties thus leads us to a conclusion about the authority of the post Vatican II hierarchy: Given the Church's indefectibility in her teaching (her teaching cannot change) and the Church's infallibility in her universal disciplinary laws (her liturgical laws cannot compromise doctrine or harm souls), it is impossible that the errors and evils we have catalogued could have proceeded from what is in fact the authority of the Church. There must be another explanation. The only explanation for these errors and evils that preserves the doctrines of the Church's indefectibility and infallibility is that the clerics who promulgated them somehow lost as individuals the authority of the offices in the Church they otherwise appeared to possess — or that they never possessed such authority before God in the first place. Their pronouncements became juridically void and could not bind Catholics... Such a loss of authority flows from a general principle in Church law: public defection from the Catholic faith automatically deprives a person of all ecclesiastical offices he may hold... Put simply, on one hand we know that the Church cannot defect. On the other, we know that theologians and even popes teach that a pope as an individual can defect from the faith, and thus lose his office and authority... the logic of the faith dictates that we affirm the indefectibility of the Church, and acknowledge the defections of men." — Rev. Anthony Cekada, "Traditionalists, Infalliblity & the Pope", at http://www.sedevacantist.net.
"...the vacancy of Peter's chair can occur in two ways: either by the death of a pope or by a pope deposing himself from that Chair through public and notorious heresy, thus making the Chair vacant." — Fr. Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D., "Finishing with Sedevacantism?", http://www.traditionalmass.org.
"The sedevacantist therefore insists that one cannot regard the modernist hierarchy as the Catholic hierarchy, since otherwise one would be associating heresy, sacrilege, invalid sacraments, error, and sinful laws with the Immaculate Spouse of Christ, making absurd the words of Christ, "he who hears you, hears Me." In a word, the sedevacantist position is that the modernist hierarchy cannot possess the Catholic authority which they claim to possess, because the Catholic authority is preserved by the assistance of the Holy Ghost from what doing what these modernists have done... the indefectibility of the Church is thus saved in this system, since it refuses to associate with the Immaculate Spouse of Christ this abomination of modernism which is the work of the devil." — Rev. Donald J. Sanborn, "Resistance & Indefectibility" http://www.traditionalmass.org.
"The six popes preceding Vatican II condemned ecumenism, religious liberty, changes in the liturgy, modernism, the evolution of dogma and the concept of pluralism. The decrees of Vatican II, as well as those still emanating from the Vatican today from the last four popes, actively promote all of the above... Catholics of today must eventually make a choice of either following what the Catholic Church and two hundred sixty popes have taught for the past twenty centuries or what Vatican Council II and the last four popes have taught for the past thirty years... One possibility is that Christ has lied to us and let the Church fall into error. This we know is impossible... the other possibility is that the occupants of the chair of Peter have either lost their faith and therefore their office, or perhaps were never valid popes in the first place." — Frs. Francisco & Dominic Radecki, C.M.R.I., What Has Happened to the Catholic Church?, epilogue).
The above quotes, along with the article written by Pivarunas which I referenced above, all produce this common theme: the "Vatican II Church" has promulgated doctrines which contradict previous ones; and that it is a teaching of the Church that popes who fall into manifest heresy, or were shown previously to be heretics prior to their election, have lost all jurisdiction and authority. What we should immediately begin to ask is why on earth these fallible, although good-hearted, men, think they are the ones who possess the authority to bind others to their conclusions? This is something very important to consider and think about. Sedevacantists will say that they are not making any binding judgment with their conclusion but merely just observing facts. However, when they begin openly promoting their theories and teaching others to believe likewise for sake of the truth, obviously what they are doing is making a judgment that they feel is necessary for salvation. They are binding others to this by spreading their theories and instructing others to believe them as well. In doing so, these fallible clergy men and laity are in fact acting as their own Magisterium. Who gave them such authority to declare such things? A question that perhaps we can ask them is where in history do we have the laity seeing apparent errors in the hierarchy, and then concluding that the hierarchy has lost their authority over them and thus they must now build their own churches centered around their own approved clergy men, and then begin to teach others to do likewise? Let us ask the sedevacantist — who has God-given, binding authority to declare a recognized Pope to be an antipope, and a recognized hierarchy to be an anti-hierarchy? Is it the laity? Do they in fact possess this authority? Absolutely not. The authority belongs to a future Pope or council (as is proven with the historical case of the infamous Pope Honorius I, and the Great Western Schism in which three men simultaneously claims to be pope). The authority does not belong to members of the laity. Especially in the present day situation, the laity who have concluded that this theory is correct have a lot to prove: what evident heresy separated these popes from the Church? And even if such heresy could be shown to exist, who gives them the authority to conclude the way they do, and then teach others to believe the same? And are these alleged "heresies" the kind of heresy that literally separates one from the Church? If they are, what is our duty at that point: is it to make the sedevacantist conclusion, or take the matter up with hierarchy to investigate? And even if they do not reach the conclusion you do, does that then mean God has delegated and transferred the authority from them to you personally? Is your authority the equivalent of a future Pope or council?
These are pressing questions, and one which sedevacantists have to seriously ponder. The question that they inevitably come up with, as I initially did, is this: "Since the modern hierarchy has embraced seemingly the ideals of modernism, how can we rely on their handling of the matter?" The simple answer is, even if the cardinals will do nothing at the present time, that in no way whatsoever means that now God has transferred the decision-making to you personally. That is a huge leap to make. What it does mean is that we need to wait for a future Pope or council to make a ruling, and until that happens (if it ever does), we have faith in God that He will be true to His promises — the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church; the faithful will not be led astray by false authoritative teachings. Remember, even in the face of various weak, sinful, and theologically questionable popes throughout history, to this day the Church has never been led astray in binding matters pertaining to faith and morals. But the sedevacantist will challenge: "Ah, but wait! The modern hierarchy has promulgated false doctrines! Just look at ecumenism!" Here is a good response, and I am indebted to the book
The Great Facade for helping me realize the distinction between binding doctrine and ecclesiastical practices and direction.
It is a sedevacantist myth that the modern hierarchy commands us to accept doctrines that harm the faith. I am curious to know which doctrines Fr. Cekada and others are referring to? If anything, what the hierarchy has done is proposed certain novelties that indicate a change of direction in the Church's approach to several different things, contrasted to the approach that the Church prior to Vatican Council II (perfect example is the Church's agenda for ecumenism). However, Catholics have not been bound to accept any doctrines or practices. Quite the opposite, Catholics are free to resist the novelties precisely because they are not set forth as binding doctrine. And we can also appeal to the Vatican on our concerns regarding the direction they are taking. In the book
The Great Facade, by Chris Ferrara & Dr. Thomas Woods, the authors note this crucial point perfectly.
"...the Church has never actually taught any doctrinal error at the level of the Magisterium, as opposed to having adopted ill-defined ecclesiastical policies to which neither a religious (i.e., the assent of prudence) nor an assent of faith can be required, policies not being proper objects of Catholic faith... papal policies and practical decisions, such as the decision to embark on an "ecumenical venture" with Protestants, do not enjoy the divine protection from error that attends a Pope's doctrinal teaching" (Facade, pgs. 89-90).
"...the novelties of Vatican II and the postconciliar Popes have never actually been imposed as Catholic doctrine... in many cases these novelties defy precise definition and cannot be reduced to distinct propositions to which Catholics are bound to give assent" (Facade, pg. 189).
"The things from which traditionalists have prescinded are novel practices, notions, attitudes, and ecclesial policies of the postconciliar epoch, none of which has actually been imposed upon Catholics as a requirement of their faith" (Facade, pg. 229).
What drove me out originally from the Novus Ordo was not a contradiction in established Catholic teaching. Even if it was, a priest at a parish is not the Magisterium. So the word of a priest does not bind the faithful in established Catholic dogma. The priests should be living examples of the truths of the faith, but they have no special gift of infalliblity and thus are prone to error. If the error be a grave, notorious one, concerning a dogma, then the issue would have to be taken up with higher authorities. I will admit that there is a lot of irreverence in worship in the Catholic world today. But irreverence in worship is not ground for completely leaving a Church. Again, the laity are fallible, and in today's world where liberalism has won over so many, most Catholics do not properly understand their faith in order to show proper reverence. The same even goes for a priest. Again, Fr. Cekada has to prove that the Magisterium has set forth binding doctrines which directly contradict previous binding doctrines in order for his position to be accurate. He can not just simply say that since there are many parishes which are infected with liberalism and thus commit irreverent acts is proof for the position that the Chair of Peter is currently vacant. The reason I attend a Tridentine Latin Mass is precisely because as a Catholic, it is my right (and the right of any Catholic) to seek for and attend a valid Tridentine Latin Mass. The Church has never taken away this right from Catholics, and so I rightfully use it. I prefer it over and against the Novus Ordo, simply because the Novus Ordo "liturgical experiment" has proven through its fruits to have been an overall bad idea. Liberalism has infected it in just about every which way possible. This does not prove its invalidity in consecration, and it does not prove that Pope Paul VI did not have the right to create it. In today's world, Catholics are given two options to attend Mass — Tridentine or Novus Ordo. No Catholic is obliged or forced to attend the Novus Ordo, and thus I would encourage them to seek a Tridentine Mass and to pray for its return to regularity as the norm of liturgy within Catholicism. I would not encourage Catholics to seek a Tridentine Mass offered by a priest who rejects the papacy of John Paul II. We are the Magisterium, and such decisions are not for us to decide and then spread to others. And further, even if Fr. Cekada and like-minded sedevacantists do offer evidence for conflicting binding doctrines or evident heresy in the pontiffs, they must defer to the judgment of the Church, which is the only authority with God-given abilities to make a binding decision on the matter. Cekada is not the authority, or any other sedevacantist. They will admit this, but in practice they act as if they are by spreading the material that they do. The Church dealt with Honorius I when he openly admitted to believing in the error of the one will of Christ in his letter to Sergius. And the Church had to deal with the matter when John XXII began teaching from his pulpit that the saints did not yet enjoy the Beatific Vision in heaven. And Matthew 18:15-18 settles the whole issue, since it precisely says that if we have a disagreement with a brother (such as whether or not such-and-such a pope is a real pope), we take it to the Church in the final court of appeals. We must then obey the decision they come up with. Admittedly, today's Church is stacked with weak, liberal-minded clergy, and so we may have to wait a while for a binding decision. But even if we do, we still keep our faith steadfast in the promise Jesus gave regarding the Church and the gates of hell. The facts are — there is not one incorrect doctrine taught by the postconciliar Popes that has been set fort as binding on the souls of the faithful. If there has been, I would love for the sedevacantists to show which one it is. If all they can show are statements taken from speeches given by this committee or that cardinal or the Pope himself, then that does not prove the case at all.
In regards to Vatican Council II, I would highly encourage all to purchase and study these resources:
In the Murky Waters of Vatican II by Atila Sinke Guimaraes,
"The Ambiguities of Vatican II" cassettes by Robert Sungenis, and
The Great Facade by Chris Ferrara and Dr. Thomas Woods. The question I ask sedevacantists is this: when it comes to alleged heresies taught by Vatican II, are these statements actual heresies or merely ambiguous, vague ones? Because if they are ambiguous, our duty would obviously be to interpret them in light of traditional teaching, and not in terms of liberal novelties. And Vatican II, being merely a pastoral council which set forth no canons or statements with the note of infalliblity, was subject to much ambiguous abuse by the liberals who hijacked it. But since God allowed these ambiguities to exist within the documents, then we should be interpreting them in the historic, traditional Catholic sense. If we embrace a novel interpretation, then obviously we are distorting Vatican II. Sedevacantists largely rely on the liberal twisting of Vatican II to support their claim that it taught error. Thus, without even realizing it, sedevacantists and liberal innovators and modernists all end up sharing a common connection: they choose to use Vatican II's ambiguous statements to their advantage. What they should all be doing is viewing Vatican II in light of 2,000 years of Catholic tradition and teaching. If they did do this, there would be no real problem.
As an example, Fr. Cekada, in his pamphlet
"Traditionalists, Infalliblity, and the Pope", uses the argument that Lumen Gentium erred in its statement that says the true Church subsists in the Catholic Church. In all honesty, I do not see the problem with saying the true Church subsists in the Catholic Church. Webster's Dictionary, 2nd edition, defines "subsists" as: "to continue in existence." If we apply that definition to Vatican II, it would mean, "The true Church continues to exist in the Catholic Church." Would Fr. Cekada deny that? For him to say that this teaching "implies" that the true Church can also subsist in other religious bodies, I do not see any implication in the passage under discussion. Vatican II is very clear that the true Church is in fact the Catholic Church. The truth continues in all its existence in Catholicism, as it has from the beginning. There may be liberals who twist this passage somehow to imply truth can subsist in other religious bodies, but that interpretation would be wrong since Vatican II can not contradict previous established Church teaching. When seen with the "eyes of Tradition," Vatican II presents no problem to the faithful Catholic. Ambiguities do not prove error; liberals who twist ambiguities to their liking do so to their own destruction. Thus, sedevacantists also do so to their own destruction.
5 Things to Avoid When Arguing With a Sedevacantist
- Avoid Matthew 16:15-19 unless you know how to accurately apply it. — Sedevacantists believe that today we are in a period of interregnum, which is the period of time from the death of a pope to the election of another. They will argue that Pius XII was the last true pope (some will even say John XXIII), and that we are still waiting for the election of the next pope. To them, Paul VI and John Paul II have been pretenders to the throne. Now, we know that everytime a pope dies, the whole Church enters a period of interregnum. So there is nothing inconsistent in that. We also know that there have been antipopes in the past. So there is nothing inconsistent in that. Thus, if we want to use Matthew 16 correctly, we should apply it correctly. Agree with the sedevacantist that these things are plausible, however, never in history has the death of a pope caused the entire Church to fall into apostasy, including those who hold authority in the Church. In this sense, it would seem that the gates of hell had prevailed. Seemingly overnight, the entire Church, according to the sedevacantist thesis, plunged into apostasy in every corner possible, and now we are left with a remnant church with only a handful of leaders and no actual Magsiterium whatsoever to appeal to, and no apparent way to solve the problem. And imagine 40 years of this happening. That to me fits the description of hell prevailing. Essentially, it says that Jesus left his church with no actual authority at all, and did not leave any possible way for the Church to rescue herself (unless you're a conclavist, which is a whole other argument).
- Avoid connections between sedevacantism, the SSPX, and more mainline traditionalism. — Apologists often confuse the three and assume they are all the same. They are not. Sedevacantists are vastly different from the other two, since it (Sedevacantism) claims that the Vatican II Church is an entirely new religion with its own antipope and anti-liturgy. This is far from the claims and positions held by the SSPX and traditionalists in general.
- Avoid resorting to the "numbers" arguments. — claiming that sedevacantist is wrong simply because it does not have many followers is no way to prove one's point. Truth isn't found in large followings. If it was, then Christianity would have never got off the ground with only a carpenter's son and twelve followers starting it all.
- Avoid labeling sedevacantists as merely Catholics who enjoy fanciful theories. — Sedevacantists go to great pains to prove their position from canon law and Church teaching. Do not entertain the idea that they are merely Catholics who like sensationalism.
Things to Stress On When Arguing With a Sedevacantists
- Stress the correct definition of heresy and how it applies to a Catholic, and examine the evidence used for Roncalli and Montini. — heresy has a very explicfit definition. In order to separate one from the Church, the heresy embraced must be evident, generally known and open to all, widely and unfavorably known; the heretic must stubbornly adhere to a belief not out of ignorance, but that he knows opposes infallible truth; the heresy must clearly be against a dogma (not just a vague or ambiguous statement), and should probably be recognized by a general consensus of those qualified to judge (i.e. the Cardinals). When one applies all that to the evidence used against Roncalli and Montini, it simply does not wash. Sedevacantists generally have a very broad definition of heresy.
- Stress the cases of Honorius and John XXII and apply it to "errors" of the modern hierarchy. — Honorius, in a letter written to the bishop Sergius, actively promoted his belief in the Monophysite heresy (that Jesus only had one will instead of two). John XXII openly taught to an audience in several speeches that the departed saints did not immediately enjoy the Beatific Vision. Both of these popes taught errors as pope. In the case of Honorius, he was condemned as a heretic by two subsequent popes and three councils. Yet, never once did anyone say that Honorius lost his office as pope or that John XXII did.
- Stress the idea of becoming one's own Magisterium when we hold to and teach others about who is an antipope and who isn't. — Sedevacantists will attempt to refute this any which way possible, but stick to it. Keep asking who made the laity the judge and jury in this situation? When has this ever happened before in history, in which the laity acted as the Magisterium in such a crucial matter? Show the sedevacantist the parallel between what he is doing, and what Old Catholics did after Vatican Council I (Old Catholics claimed the Church erred in its teaching on papal infallibility and thus they formed their own churches).
- Stress the difference between "ambiguities" in language and evident errors, and ask which interpretation the sedevacantist holds to in regards to Vatican II? — Help sedevacantists see that Vatican II does not teach any explicit error. When seen in light of tradition, Vatican II poses no problem to the faithful Catholic. Liberals twist Vatican II's vague statements to promote their own modernists agendas. Sedevacantists largely rely on these liberal interpretations to prove the council erred. Help the sedevacantist realize that he is taking the liberal side over the traditional one in this instance.
| |
PUBLISHED on the Internet: ___________.
|
|
|
Joseph Moreaux's "Death Knell for Sedevacantism"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P U R P O S E
Written with the purpose of educating people in matters concerning the Catholic Resistance to the Modernist Apostasy, and based on the principles elucidated by the Church, that the truth is never afraid, and that the Church is never afraid of the Truth, and on the principles elucidated by Frs. Rumble & Carty and by Fulton Sheen in his essay, "The Art of Controversy". — Benedicamus Deus, Lúcio.
|
Fair Use Notice
This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human, religious, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Lúcio Mascarenhas
|