Beyond Sedevacantism

©Prax Maskaren. 2nd April 2003.
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003
From: JF
To: "Prax Maskaren"

Dear Prax

I found your websites and pages very informative. But, I am still confused. If you don't mind, could you answer a few questions? We have been "leaving" SSPX for a few months now and I believe the complete split will be soon. My husband must come to grips with all I have found out.

But, what about CMRI or SSPV (B. Kelly's group only)? Are they alright to attend? If not, could you tell me why? Also, if you could, could you tell me the correct church teaching on NFP? I was always taught it was a mortal sin and then I read Fr. Cekada who says that it is not. Confusion set in! Finally, do you have any resources to give me more information on WWII and Cardinal Siri?

Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge. It is well appreciated.

God Bless

JF
Dear J.F.,

Thanks for your letter.

To begin with, I would recommend that the best way to be able to satisfactorily face such situations is to be better grounded in the faith. I presume that you are resident in the US or elsewhere in the West. If that is correct, you should be able to find good pre-Vatican II Catholic literature and to read and study their teachings.

I learnt my faith principally from the Radio Replies of Frs. Rumble and Carty, and I learnt to understand the present false and stage-managed 'Crisis in Catholicism' from Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy.

Rumble & Carty's works, as well as a great many other Catholic literature works are being reprinted by TAN Books, Rockford, Illinois, USA. Coomaraswamy has an excellent website at http://www.coomaraswamy-catholic-writings.com

There are, however, even better books than these that I have not had access to and which you should be able to have access to. The greatest of these would be St. Thomas of Aquinas' Summa Theologica

Rumble & Carty grounds one firmly in the Catholic Faith. Coomaraswamy provides the key to understanding the present situation regarding the occupants of the Vatican since the death of Pope Pius XII. This would make one a Sedevacantist.

Sedevacantism posits that the Papacy is vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII. Actually, all that Sedevacantism can say surely beyond any doubt is that the men who have occupied the Vatican since 1958 are NOT popes, but heresiarchs, ruling a foreign sect, Roman Modernism.

It cannot posit as a certain fact that the Papacy is indeed vacant. This is where the further issues of Giuseppe Cardinal Siri and other Papal Claimants comes in.

However, to return briefly.

To be a Catholic is to follow and accept the doctrines and teachings of the Church. Now, the Church teaching, that of her theologians and of her Doctors, etc., tell us plainly enough that a man cannot be both a public and manifest heretic and also Pope.

That is, a public and manifest heretic is, by definition, a non-Catholic. And the first qualification for being Pope is that the subject of the Papal Office should himself be necessarily Catholic. Therefore, a non-Catholic cannot really become Pope, appearances to the contrary nothwithstanding.

In one of my recent pages, then, I have shown how these principles apply, particularly with respect to the SSPX - the Lefebvrists. [sspxetc.html]

Therefore, one can disregard the SSPX as being a valid Catholic group.

Clarence Kelly was one of a group of SSPX priests who were influenced by Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy, one of the lecturers in their American seminary, and therefore came to reject the claims of the antipopes resident in the Vatican, including the present antipope John-Paul II.

The position of this group was that the ordinations conferred by Bishop Peter Martin Ngo Dinh Thuk were defective and therefore null and void. However, upon investigation, members of the group, including Daniel Dolan, Anthony Cekada, Donald Sanborn, etc., came to realize that this understanding was wrong, and that the ordinations were in fact valid.

This precipated a split, and these latter went out from Kelly and the SSPV, while Kelly insisting on his position.

However, subsequently, Kelly has procured an episcopal ordination from a Bishop Mendez in worse circumstances than that of Bishop Thuk. Thus, his allegations against Bishop Thuk rebound upon himself. However, Kelly pretends that there is nothing wrong or contradictory in his actions, and acts as it the contradictions have not been pointed out, and has not attempted to prove these alleged contradictions to be wrong, which he ought to do.

It is my understanding that as a Christian, Kelly owes everyone of us an explanation for his actions, a justification against the reasonable allegations made against him and his conduct or a frank and contrite admission of error on his part, together with a demonstrated willingness to amend. That is not yet forthcoming.

There does not seem to be any problems with the CMRI group of Bishop Pivarunas. I would recommend this group the most, together with the Dolan-Sanborn-Cekada group, the Trento group of Mexico, etc.

Regarding NFP: I would say this, that it seems to be validly Catholic. However, it is something that is entirely discretionary. A couple can choose whether they would want to practice NFP or not, and if they do not, there is no penalty involved.

NFP, as I understand it, is the system tolerated by Pope Pius XII in which the couple keeps track of the wife's ovulation cycle, and avoids coitus during the period when conception is the most likely. There are circumstances in which it is permitted and circumstances in which it is not, and I am, honestly not familiar with those conditions.

However, it remains Catholic teaching that the primary purpose of marriage is procreation, and that to deliberately frustrate the procreative function by, for example, avoiding the entry of the sperm or of the destruction of either the sperms or of the ovae, is Onanism, a grave moral sin.

NFP does not involve any such activities.

Coming back to Sedevacantism:

Sedevacantism is a very good system for explaining the relationship between the Catholic Church and the present situation and the present occupants of the Vatican, since 1958: that they are not popes. However, it is, in itself an inadequate system. If there was indeed a true pope elected, and we are not privy to that information, we can merely claim that it is probable that the papacy is vacant, not a certain fact.

Now, it is a fact that there are numerous persons who claim to be the pope. And there are many Catholics who following the same logical thought process that results in Sedevacantism, proceed further to seek the election of a pope, given that there is none.

It is claimed for example that Giuseppe Cardinal Siri was elected pope, but blackmailed to resign; that he secretly maintained his papacy, not recognizing the validity of the resignation forced from him at, as if, gunpoint; that he ensured the perpetuation of his successors, etc.

Now all of this has no solid backing, and rests upon rumours and gossip.

Recently, the same was posted on the Traditional Catholics Club group and I had drafted a response, which, however, I have not posted. See here: sirithesis.html

I therefore discount the Siri Thesis.

However, I support the movement to have a pope elected, even if by an extraordinary lay election, as a one time occurence.

Further to this, I had even investigated the various persons who had claimed to be the Pope. After a process of elimination, I had been left with just three: Michael I, Linus II and Pius XIII. Originally, I had rejected each of these three as being defective and thus not having achieved the papacy. However, subsequently, I did a reinvestigation, and found that the Claim of Pope Michael I is true and valid.

I therefore submitted to him, and recognize him as the true pope.

I would therefore suggest that you investigate his claim for yourself, and also my pages on him:

retbpc.html | hftpwn.html

Yours sincerely,

Prax Maskaren, Bombay, India.

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1