Growing & Spreading Errors Among Many Sedevacantists
Mar 28, 2023 12:37:41 GMT -5
Caillin and John Lewis like this
Post by Pacelli on Mar 28, 2023 12:37:41 GMT -5
I think it is good to put forth my thinking very clearly and explicitly on ideas put forth by various sedevacantists, such as the rejection of some of the laws of the Catholic Church, the NUC (non-una-cum errors), the denial of Catholic teaching on the Apostolic succession, etc., which were once seen as tiny fringes among sedevacantists, and as their arguments were weak, and no one would really buy into this junk, and these incorrect positions would die a natural death, but as time has gone on, the opposite of that, is actually what has transpired.
To my amazement, these errors have not only not died, amidst the very small who held them, but have grown, and have spread. Years, ago, it was rare to come across a NUC, and I only knew one when I went to the local sedevacantist chapel. Even when I travelled, and I went to different sedevacantist chapels, I very rarely ran into any NUCs. The Catholics that I talked with, when I openly said I went to SSPX chapels as well, never raised any objections, and many even stated they go to SSPX as well when they travel.
Regarding the rejection of the laws of the Catholic Church promulgated by Pope Pius XII, at least in America, this problem was isolated to priests of SSPV and the groups/priests that broke from SSPV. It's fair to say that not all of these priests were the same, and I was friends with one, but he never criticized Pope Pius XII or his laws, he just did what he did, and was humble about it. Others are far more outspoken.
The movement to reject the laws of Pope Pius XII has now spread beyond the boundaries of the sedevacantists to non-sedevacantists as well, so this is no longer a tiny problem within sedevacantism. I no longer believe that this problem can be ignored and left to die a natural death, as it not dying out over time, it is growing and some of its adherents are getting more aggressive. All sedevacantist groups, with the exception of CMRI, to the best of my knowledge, are now hardened into this position, and the new priests being trained by these groups, as far as I am aware are all adhering to it, so the problem is growing, not dying.
To the last problem, the denial of the Catholic teaching on the apostolic succession, this also was something that I had never heard from anyone, sedevacantist or not, until 2012, during the now famous Ignis Arden's debate between mostly John Lane and Fr. Cekada, but also other posters to a lesser extent. That discussion brought to light that there was something new going on in sedevacantist thinking, that no one was aware of, which was that as this crisis continues to go on in duration, that answers to how this can happen, are drifting from orthodox responses to heretical responses.
John Lane did an excellent job in refuting Fr. Cekada during the 2012 discussion using Catholic source after source to show Fr. Cekada that he was wrong. In response, Fr. Cekada heckled John Lane and did not address the sources being posted demonstrating that his position was heretical. Fr. Cekada openly asserted that vacant offices continue the apostolic succesion, not living men who are the successors of the apostles. Fr. Cekada's only real argument put forth was to challenge John Lane to name one of the bishops who had the apostolic succession that John Lane was saying must exist with living men who continue the apostolic succession, even if it comes down to just a single successor left.
Fr. Cekada's argument, is a challenge based on a question of fact, not theology, and it fails, as our duty is to believe the Faith, completely and totally, regardless as to whether we see the facts which may or may not be visible in order to support our belief. Fr. Cekada also challenged John Lane to produce a source which states that there can only be one successor of the Apostles left, but John did not need to produce that, as it's a logical conclusion that if the apostolic succession can never be interrupted, then therefore it must continue, and in order to continue there must be a minimum one apostolic successor in the world at all times, otherwise it ends or is at a minimum interrupted, and neither can ever happen.
Since 2012, things have only gotten worse. The sedeprivationists have moved on from merely theorizing on the matter of the Petrine succession, and are now theorizing that the apostolic succession itself is continued through a material succession. Their former position was erroneous, but the newer position is heretical. Other sedevacantists now hold a new definition of the apostolic succession, which omits jurisdiction as a necessary requirement of an apostolic successor, which is also heretical. Others also believe that the apostolic succession can be interrupted, which is also heretical. The last problematic group are those that do understand that the sedevacantist or traditional bishops are not successors of the apostles, but believe that jurisdiction (the binding and loosening power given only to the successors of the Apostles) is held by these sacramental bishops. There are some sedevacantist bishops who openly exercise jurisdiction, and bind Catholics to obey them or be denied the sacraments. There is even one prominent sedevacantist that is openly advocating for the sedevacantist and traditional bishops to have a conclave.
To make matters worse, there are now sedevacantist bishops claiming the apostolic succession, so things are degrading, not getting better. What I see happening is a gradual movement that is going deeper and deeper from Catholic theology and the unity of the Church. While before, it was kept at a simple level, with sacramental bishops bringing the sacraments to people, waiting for better days, and leaving the bigger questions unanswered, that is no longer the reality. It's fine to speculate on the bigger questions and try to figure this all out, but it's never allowable to leave the bounds of orthodoxy or to falsely claim to be an apostolic successor, when it is not true, as they do not have the clearly defined requisites of what an apostolic successor must have.
In my opinion, many sedevacantists, whether bishops, priests or laity, are no longer humbly speculating on these matters, they are adhering to unorthodox ideas, and they are hardening in those ideas, and it is getting more difficult to get through to them that these new ideas are a departure from Catholic orthodoxy, as their thinking in many cases is heretical or erroneous, and their actions are becoming more and more schismatic acts.
I am writing this for two reasons, to warn those who hold the sedevacantist position to be on guard, so you don't adopt heresy or error, or join an undeclared heretical or schismatic sect, and secondly to state publicly why I am doing what I am doing on this forum. The Conciliar sect is certainly our largest danger, but it's not the only danger. One must be on guard in our times, as by all appearances in the Roman rite, we have hardly any successors of the Apostles left to protect the sheep in the Church from the wolf. Among the lawful pastors of the Catholic Church who are still left, and it seems that they are mostly present in the eastern rites, they are not going to be helping you or protecting you from heresy, error, and schism, you must do that yourself. Catholics aware of these dangers must speak out, in charity, not because we have an office or a commission, but because our brother and sisters in the Faith are in grave danger.
To my amazement, these errors have not only not died, amidst the very small who held them, but have grown, and have spread. Years, ago, it was rare to come across a NUC, and I only knew one when I went to the local sedevacantist chapel. Even when I travelled, and I went to different sedevacantist chapels, I very rarely ran into any NUCs. The Catholics that I talked with, when I openly said I went to SSPX chapels as well, never raised any objections, and many even stated they go to SSPX as well when they travel.
Regarding the rejection of the laws of the Catholic Church promulgated by Pope Pius XII, at least in America, this problem was isolated to priests of SSPV and the groups/priests that broke from SSPV. It's fair to say that not all of these priests were the same, and I was friends with one, but he never criticized Pope Pius XII or his laws, he just did what he did, and was humble about it. Others are far more outspoken.
The movement to reject the laws of Pope Pius XII has now spread beyond the boundaries of the sedevacantists to non-sedevacantists as well, so this is no longer a tiny problem within sedevacantism. I no longer believe that this problem can be ignored and left to die a natural death, as it not dying out over time, it is growing and some of its adherents are getting more aggressive. All sedevacantist groups, with the exception of CMRI, to the best of my knowledge, are now hardened into this position, and the new priests being trained by these groups, as far as I am aware are all adhering to it, so the problem is growing, not dying.
To the last problem, the denial of the Catholic teaching on the apostolic succession, this also was something that I had never heard from anyone, sedevacantist or not, until 2012, during the now famous Ignis Arden's debate between mostly John Lane and Fr. Cekada, but also other posters to a lesser extent. That discussion brought to light that there was something new going on in sedevacantist thinking, that no one was aware of, which was that as this crisis continues to go on in duration, that answers to how this can happen, are drifting from orthodox responses to heretical responses.
John Lane did an excellent job in refuting Fr. Cekada during the 2012 discussion using Catholic source after source to show Fr. Cekada that he was wrong. In response, Fr. Cekada heckled John Lane and did not address the sources being posted demonstrating that his position was heretical. Fr. Cekada openly asserted that vacant offices continue the apostolic succesion, not living men who are the successors of the apostles. Fr. Cekada's only real argument put forth was to challenge John Lane to name one of the bishops who had the apostolic succession that John Lane was saying must exist with living men who continue the apostolic succession, even if it comes down to just a single successor left.
Fr. Cekada's argument, is a challenge based on a question of fact, not theology, and it fails, as our duty is to believe the Faith, completely and totally, regardless as to whether we see the facts which may or may not be visible in order to support our belief. Fr. Cekada also challenged John Lane to produce a source which states that there can only be one successor of the Apostles left, but John did not need to produce that, as it's a logical conclusion that if the apostolic succession can never be interrupted, then therefore it must continue, and in order to continue there must be a minimum one apostolic successor in the world at all times, otherwise it ends or is at a minimum interrupted, and neither can ever happen.
Since 2012, things have only gotten worse. The sedeprivationists have moved on from merely theorizing on the matter of the Petrine succession, and are now theorizing that the apostolic succession itself is continued through a material succession. Their former position was erroneous, but the newer position is heretical. Other sedevacantists now hold a new definition of the apostolic succession, which omits jurisdiction as a necessary requirement of an apostolic successor, which is also heretical. Others also believe that the apostolic succession can be interrupted, which is also heretical. The last problematic group are those that do understand that the sedevacantist or traditional bishops are not successors of the apostles, but believe that jurisdiction (the binding and loosening power given only to the successors of the Apostles) is held by these sacramental bishops. There are some sedevacantist bishops who openly exercise jurisdiction, and bind Catholics to obey them or be denied the sacraments. There is even one prominent sedevacantist that is openly advocating for the sedevacantist and traditional bishops to have a conclave.
To make matters worse, there are now sedevacantist bishops claiming the apostolic succession, so things are degrading, not getting better. What I see happening is a gradual movement that is going deeper and deeper from Catholic theology and the unity of the Church. While before, it was kept at a simple level, with sacramental bishops bringing the sacraments to people, waiting for better days, and leaving the bigger questions unanswered, that is no longer the reality. It's fine to speculate on the bigger questions and try to figure this all out, but it's never allowable to leave the bounds of orthodoxy or to falsely claim to be an apostolic successor, when it is not true, as they do not have the clearly defined requisites of what an apostolic successor must have.
In my opinion, many sedevacantists, whether bishops, priests or laity, are no longer humbly speculating on these matters, they are adhering to unorthodox ideas, and they are hardening in those ideas, and it is getting more difficult to get through to them that these new ideas are a departure from Catholic orthodoxy, as their thinking in many cases is heretical or erroneous, and their actions are becoming more and more schismatic acts.
I am writing this for two reasons, to warn those who hold the sedevacantist position to be on guard, so you don't adopt heresy or error, or join an undeclared heretical or schismatic sect, and secondly to state publicly why I am doing what I am doing on this forum. The Conciliar sect is certainly our largest danger, but it's not the only danger. One must be on guard in our times, as by all appearances in the Roman rite, we have hardly any successors of the Apostles left to protect the sheep in the Church from the wolf. Among the lawful pastors of the Catholic Church who are still left, and it seems that they are mostly present in the eastern rites, they are not going to be helping you or protecting you from heresy, error, and schism, you must do that yourself. Catholics aware of these dangers must speak out, in charity, not because we have an office or a commission, but because our brother and sisters in the Faith are in grave danger.