Customer Reviews

Sedevacantism: A False Solution to a Real Problem

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

In my review below, I quote extensively from the erudite work of Fr. Anthony Cekada, to whom I give full credit when defending sedevacantism from the likes of the SSPX and others who malign our position.

" All traditional Catholics know the disastrous effects the changes of Vatican II produced. We resisted those changes as harmful to souls, even though they were approved with what purported to be the authority of the Church. All of us have grappled with the problem of how to reconcile the doctrine of the indefectibility of the one, true Church of Christ and her authority on one hand, with the state of the post-Vatican II Church on the other.

Traditional Catholics have offered various solutions. Some (including SSPX and the reviewer above) base their resistance to the changes on the notion that individual members of the post-Conciliar hierarchy are abusing their authority. Others (sedevacantists) contend that men who have defected from the faith now occupy the Holy See and all (or most) episcopal sees, and that all such sees at present are therefore juridically vacant -- or that there is at least a doubt present as to whether the current occupants of these sees obtained or retain juridical authority.

The sedevacantist position -- I risk oversimplifying a complex issue -- flows from two considerations: one of fact, the other of law.

1. Fact. Certain pronouncements of Vatican II and the post-Conciliar popes on religious liberty, ecumenism and various other doctrinal matters appear to contradict, sometimes word for word, previous Church teachings, or appear to propose as true certain teachings which the Church has condemned in the past. Those who adhere to the sedevacantist position would contend that such pronouncements represent a public defection from the Catholic faith.

2. Law. According to church law, public defection from the Catholic faith automatically deprives a person of all ecclesiastical offices he may hold. Theologians and canonists such as St. Robert Bellarmine, Cajetan, Suarez, Torquemada, and Wernz and Vidal maintain, without compromising the doctrine of papal infallibility, that even a pope may himself become a heretic and thus lose the pontificate. (Some of these authors also maintain that a pope can become a schismatic.) This possibility is recognized even by an authoritative commentary on the 1983 Code of Canon Law:
"Classical canonists discussed the question of whether a pope, in his private or personal opinions, could go into heresy, apostasy, or schism. If he were to do so in a notoriously and widely publicized manner, he would break communion, and according to an accepted opinion, lose his office ipso facto. (c. 194 §1, 2º ). Since no one can judge the pope (c.1404) no one could depose a pope for such crimes, and the authors are divided as to how his loss of office would be declared in such a way that a vacancy could then be filled by a new election." (James A. Corridan et al. editors, The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary commissioned by the Canon Law Society of America [New York: Paulist 1985], c. 333.)

Now, one who opposes the sedevacantist position may care to argue that members of the modern hierarchy are not guilty of heresy, or that (pace Robert Bellarmine and commentators on the 1983 Code) a pope cannot fall from office through heresy.

It is unfair and unreasonable, however, to assert that the sedevacantist -- who merely puts two entirely defensible propositions together and draws a logical conclusion from them -- has "rejected the authority of the Pope." Such is tantamount to calling the sedevacantist a schismatic. But he is no such thing, as is evident from one highly respected commentary on the Code:
"Finally, one cannot consider as schismatics those who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person suspect or, because of widespread rumors, doubtfully elected (as happened after the election of Urban VI), or who would resist him as a civil authority and not as pastor of the Church." (Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum [Rome: Gregorian 1937], 7:398)

I concede (ruefully) that members of the sedevacantist camp have frequently adopted a rabid tone against others in the traditional movement. But sedevacantists aren't the only ones guilty of this. Their opposite numbers in the movement -- partisans of positions of the St. Pius X Society -- have in return consistently tried to demonize the sedevacantists.

All this poisons the atmosphere and makes impossible any rational discussion of a serious and complex issue."

I am entirely in sympathy with the traditionalist stream in the thinking of sedevacantists. But then again.....

There is an old joke: Is the Pope Catholic? And an older answer: you can't be more Catholic than the Pope.

But the sedevacantists try.

Like the innumerable versions of the "two-seed-in-the-spirit-Baptists" there are lots of flavours of sedevacantism, but the vanilla argument usually runs along the lines of:
1) "pope" ....[sneer] .....(x) [x, pick one! It's a random variable!], wasn't Pope because he....
2) was a secret Freemason, or
2a) sacrificed babies, or....
2b) shhhhssssshhhh, wasn't really Italian, or...
2c) shhhhsssssss....wasn't from an Italian noble family, or....
2d) sshhhhhhhsss....wasn't from the *right* Italian noble family

and therefore could not validly be Pope so therefore we don't have to:
1) obey Catholic doctrine and the magisterium
2) obey the Pope
3) ever ever ever celebrate the Novus Ordo (the heresy Mass!)
4) pay any attention to Vatican II

So the sedevacantists are...(wait for it)...*MORE* Catholic than the Pope.

Their arguments left this Anglican convert scratching his head. And yep, I hate the Novus Ordo and would prefer the Latin Mass, but what ya gonna do?

The sedevacantists arguments is to go be protestants and to say they are Catholics.

This useful book presents the origin and history of the sedevacantist movement and its various whacked-out schools (it does miss some, and boy are these people fun to read about) and also gives a respectful and precise answer to the "ultimately absurd consequences of its principles."

Unlike my review and flippant tone, this book is a sober examination of the problem and response, treating these ape-sh---crazy people with charity and respect in an attempt to persuade them from their error. Me, I'd say "look out below! You've thrown away your fire insurance!"

Highly recommended.