William J. Morgan, Counter-Reformation Association. Spring AD 1998. Lady Day.
1997 saw an ever-growing preoccupation with sedevacantism, not least in French-language publications. In the first months of the year, the Abbe Simoulin, then the Fraternity of St. Pius X's prior in Lyon and formerly rector of the Econe seminary, used the mission's newsletter L'aigle de Lyon in an attempt to counter Pere Vinson's influential declaration of sedevacantism, made in his Simple Lettre bulletin and in his pamphlet Une hypothese valable?. (Simple Lettre, Maison St. Joseph, 38470 Serre-Nerpol, France. )
Pere Vinson has since reaffirmed his view that one can have moral certainty regarding the sedevacantist position, but still fails to appreciate that it is not simply a matter of theological opinion (even if certain), but rather of dogmatic fact. Our careful readers will hardly need reminding that that dogmatic fact is entailed by the Catholic doctrine of the indefectibility in the Faith, through the acts of its Pontiffs, of the Holy Roman Church; taken in conjunction with such a contingent fact as the lack of doctrinal rectitude of the New Mass, promulgated by Paul VI and repeatedly endorsed by John Paul II.
The April 1997 issue of Courier de Rome (the French-language editionof the Roman Si Si No No) contained an article entitled A propos d'une these sedevactiste by a pseudonymous Dionisius. In fact, the thesis referred to was not sedevacantism properly so called, but rather sedeprivationism, as defended (in Sacerdotium, No. 16) by Fr. Donald Sanborn, one of the original American Nine and one-time rector of the Fraternity's American seminary. However, Dionisius used the opportunity to indulge in extremely wild - and wildly inaccurate - statements about adherents of both positions, while treating them as one and the same.
Sedevacantism is, of course, the position that the See of Peter is currently in theological reality vacant because John Paul II (live his two predecessors) is not a legitimate Pope but rather an antipope. Sedeprivationism, by contrast, is the claim that the "Conciliar Popes" have been "materially 'Popes' only." Hence, that the See of Peter is not strictly vacant but rather in a state of privation. Of course, the sedeprivationist thesis is inconsistent and self-refuting. Either John Paul II is what he claims to be - a legitimate Pope - or he is not. If he is not - which is what the sedeprivationists say - then by acting as a valid Pope he makes himself an antipope. But an antipope is ipso facto schismatic, and therefore ineligible to be "materially 'Pope' only."
The Winter issue of Le Sel de la Terre, the prestigious journal of the Dominicaln Fathers at Avrille, also devotes a significant editorial to the issue of sedevacantism and its status. Entitled Galilee et les hypotheses 'valable', the Dominical editorial combines coded opposition to Pere Vinson's overt sedevacantism with a defence of the covert variety. It seeks to establish a parallel between Galileo's heliocentric theory and the sedevacantist "hypothesis." It contends that one must not teach a permissible hypothesis as though it is a certainlty - especially if it is likely to cause scandal - but that equally one must not treat such a hypothesis as a heresy. The choice of comparision is unfortunate for habemuspapamists, suggesting as it does that everyone will eventually recognize the truth of sedevacantism, as they do that of heliocentrism. However, the editorial makes a somewhat embarrassed disavowal of that suggestion, aligning itself with the Econe party-line.
Of positive importance, however, is the Dominican editorial's express statement that Mgr. Lefebvre gave his public support to some priests who were de facto sedevacantists. And it names as an example the late Abbe Coache. It thereby categorically confirms reports which have been circulating for some time that the Abbe Coache - one of the half dozen best-known and most admired anti-Conciliarist French priests - did not name John Paul II "una cum" in the Canon of the Mass.
The news of the losses from the Fraternity of St. Pius X in America (including four priests) to the embryonic Society of St. John, as reported by Bishop Williamson in his newsletters, is extremely saddening for those of us who lookt to the Fraternity's doctrinal conversion, not to its destruction. Whatever the personality clashes and disagreements as to pastoral policy, the outcome illustrates that the underlying cause of the Fraternity's periodic divisions is theological, indeed doctrinal. If one continues to prech public recognition of John Paul II as a legitimate Pope, then priests will quite understandably seek an arrangement by which they may pursue their High Church preferences while enjoying his communion.
In a letter of December 17 to Bishop Fellay (made public on December 22), another American priest, Fr. Robert L. Neville, resigned from the Fraternity on the ground that its habemuspapamism is incompatible with the Catholic faith. Fr. Neville's letter is admirable, but it is tragic that he has simply resigned.
