Our series continues…
An Introduction to Sedevacantism
Part III: Sacraments for Non-Catholics in the 1983 Code of Canon Law
In August of 2016, we began a video series introducing newcomers to Sedevacantism in a way that is easy to follow, provides airtight argumentation, and does not overwhelm.
The first part of the series put before the viewer the Second Vatican Council’s new doctrine on the Church (ecclesiology), according to which the Church of Jesus Christ no longer is the Catholic Church, as taught by Pope Pius XII and all of his predecessors, but instead now “subsists in” it. The second installment of the series focused on the Vatican II heresy that blasphemously claims that the Holy Ghost uses false religions as means of salvation.
Those who have not yet seen these first two parts of the video series or would like to watch them again, may do so at the following links:
- Introduction to Sedevacantism, Part I: Vatican II’s New Ecclesiology
- Introduction to Sedevacantism, Part II: Vatican II’s Teaching on False Religions as Means of Salvation
Today we are releasing our third part in the series, which exposes and refutes another error — one that is also a sacrilege — that arises from the Second Vatican Council: the permission officially granted to baptized non-Catholics to receive some of the [Novus Ordo] sacraments under certain conditions. This is legislated specifically in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, promulgated with the supposed “apostolic authority” of “Pope” John Paul II. See for yourself:
Canon 844:
3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.
4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.
(Antipope John Paul II, Novus Ordo Code of Canon Law [1983], Canon 844.3-4)
In 2003, the same John Paul II reaffirmed this impious and sacrilegious law in an encyclical letter:
While it is never legitimate to concelebrate [the New Mass] in the absence of full communion, the same is not true with respect to the administration of the Eucharist under special circumstances, to individual persons belonging to Churches or Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church.
(Antipope John Paul II, “Encyclical” Ecclesia De Eucharistia, n. 45)
This goes for the Latin church as much as it does for the Eastern Novus Ordo churches, whose Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches, published in 1990 by the same John Paul II, legislates the exact same thing (see Canon 671 §§ 3-4).
Our third Introduction to Sedevacantism video exposes and refutes this impious error, which many people are not even aware the Vatican II Sect has enshrined in its universal law:
To be clear: No, there is no misunderstanding here.
In 1993, the Modernist Unholy See had published a lengthy documented entitled Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, which is a veritable manual for implementing the ecumenism and ecclesiology of Vatican II. It was approved, confirmed, and ordered to be published by Antipope John Paul II on March 25, 1993. This impious document also sanctions the administration of some Novus Ordo sacraments to baptized non-Catholics:
129. …[I]n certain circumstances, by way of exception, and under certain conditions, access to these sacraments [Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick] may be permitted, or even commended, for Christians of other Churches and ecclesial Communities.
130. In case of danger of death, Catholic ministers may administer these sacraments when the conditions given below (n. 131) are present. In other cases, it is strongly recommended that the diocesan Bishop, taking into account any norms which may have been established for this matter by the Episcopal Conference or by the Synods of Eastern Catholic Churches, establish general norms for judging situations of grave and pressing needand for verifying the conditions mentioned below (n. 131). In accord with Canon Law, these general norms are to be established only after consultation with at least the local competent authority of the other interested Church or ecclesial Community. Catholic ministers will judge individual cases and administer these sacraments only in accord with these established norms, where they exist. Otherwise they will judge according to the norms of this Directory.
131. The conditions under which a Catholic minister may administer the sacraments of the Eucharist, of penance and of the anointing of the sick to a baptized person who may be found in the circumstances given above (n. 130) are that the person be unable to have recourse for the sacrament desired to a minister of his or her own Church or ecclesial Community, ask for the sacrament of his or her own initiative, manifest Catholic faith in this sacrament and be properly disposed.
(Antipope John Paul II via Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism [1993], nn. 129-131; underlining added.)
The matter is clear: As long as they’re baptized, non-Catholis can legitimately, according to Novus Ordo law, ask to be given “Holy Communion”, “absolution”, and “Anointing of the Sick” — and then just as legitimately receive the same — without converting to Catholicism, as long as they have a “grave and pressing need”, even outside the danger of death (as in, “I have no intention of becoming a Catholic, but I just need Catholic sacraments”), which is verified and/or judged in part by the “competent authority” of the non-Catholic’s false religion, as long as the non-Catholic is “unable to have recourse” to a false minister of his own heretical sect!
This wicked universal law is yet another instance that proves that the Novus Ordo Sect is not the Roman Catholic Church because the true Church is protected from endorsing such a terrible affront to Almighty God. Further information on this topic, especially with regard to how it relates to the “Communion for adulterers” issue and Amoris Laetitia, can be found here:
We hope that our Introduction to Sedevacantism series will be helpful to many. Be sure to share it with friends and family, co-workers and fellow-parishioners. Ask them for their opinion of the video — that’s always a good conversation starter.
For those who are interested in more information about Sedevacantism, we also recommend the following:
- The Syllogism of Sedevacantism — Bp. Donald Sanborn
- Why Sedevacantism? — Fr. Anthony Cekada
- Have the Gates of Hell Prevailed? — Novus Ordo Watch
- Topic: Sedevacantism — Novus Ordo Watch
- Topic: Ecumenism & Interreligious Dialogue — Novus Ordo Watch
- OK, so it’s a mess but… now what?! — Novus Ordo Watch
What would you say about these examples of papally sanctioned “communicatio in sacris” with heretics and schismatics:
https://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2010/09/communicatio-in-sacris-ii-tollerari.html
https://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2010/09/communicatio-in-sacris-iii-blessed.html
https://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2010/09/communicatio-in-sacris-iv-dont-shoot.html
https://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2010/10/communicatio-in-sacris-v-same.html
https://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2010/10/communicatio-in-sacris-vi-armenian.html
https://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2010/10/communicatio-in-sacris-vii-under.html
Clearly, the author’s attempt to use this to defend Ratzinger’s ecumenical vespers is impossible, because of its scandalous and indifferentist nature.
However, these examples of previous papal practice show that it is indeed possible for popes to permit “communicatio in sacris” with non-Catholics, without it being a sacrilege or contrary to Divine law.
Thank you for the links, very interesting. Though I’m sure that you would agree that there’s no comparison between these narrowly-defined dispensations coming from true popes and the post-Vatican II indifferentist free-for-all.
Fr. Walter Ciszek, SJ, who spent fifteen years in Communist prison camps in Siberia in the 1940s and 50s gave Communion to fellow prisoners who were Orthodox. Did he presume permission from authorities in Rome? I don’t know.
That’s clearly not permitted. We have to keep in mind that not everything someone did before Vatican II was right.
I agree with N.O.W. See Canons 855 and 2314.
“Communicatio in sacris” (common participation in religious rites) is a complex subject. It is certainly NOT true that it is ALWAYS or ABSOLUTELY forbidden, and I think the video indicates as much.
The first distinction that has to be drawn is between Catholics participating in sacred matters with non-Catholics, and non-Catholics participating in sacred matters with Catholics. Those are two different things. An exhaustive moral theology handbook would be the first thing you want to consult concerning this matter. One must also distinguish what in this comes from divine law and is therefore inherently unchangeable, and what part is merely ecclesiastical law.
Some good in-depth books on this topic are the following:
Bancroft, John R. “Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics” (1943).
Prah, John A. “Communication of Non-Catholics in Catholic Religious Rites” (1956).
Szal, Ignatius. “The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics” (1948).
I’ve long wanted to get around to responding directly to the ‘Papa Stronsay’ blog post series on that. Some people get all bent out of shape simply because someone makes a claim. Solid research is needed first; solid evidence is needed, not mere claims. That can be researched, of course, but that takes time.
Certain things also may need qualification or more accurate understanding. For example, regarding the post about St. Pius X, some people may conclude that the Pope had approved of giving sacraments to the Eastern Orthodox. He did not. Rather, assuming the testimony given to be accurate, the most we can tell from that is that the Pope told Archbishop Szeptycki that he may tolerate communicatio in sacris in certain cases. Toleration is not permission or approval. One can only tolerate an evil, never a good, and hence toleration implies it is wrong/bad. Sometimes it is prudent to tolerate something bad than to do something about it.
Thank you for your reply.
Actually, St. Pius X permitted Ukrainian Catholics to receive sacraments from schismatics, not the other way around.
The examples found in the “Papa Stronsay” articles apparently come from a 1965 article written in support of Ecumenism. What that article also says is that the same Medieval popes who permitted giving sacraments to non-Catholics in some circumstances refused that permission in others. In fact, they permitted it only in cases concerning “the apostolate among non-Catholics, aimed at bringing these back to unity with Rome”. And beginning with the Counter-Reformation, even those cases were dismissed.
Nevertheless, what the “Papa Stronsay” examples tell us is that the 1983 canon 844 is not per se sacrilegious or contrary to Divine law. However, because of its indiscriminate nature in granting permission for all schismatics to receive Catholic sacraments, it is certainly conducive to indifferentism and sacrilege, and thus harmful, which is indeed evidence for sedevacantism, because the Church is unable to institute harmful universal laws.
That being said, I don’t think any circumstance warrants giving sacraments to those outside the Church.
St. Pius X didn’t *permit* anything. He *tolerated* a specific thing, and this even just allegedly.
If you can obtain for me the name and preferably source or citation info for the 1965 article on ecumenism, I’d be happy to research it. A lot of stuff was written in 1965 that wasn’t true. 😀
Here’s something relevant (see pp. 395-99): LINK
It seems the first post tolerated the evil of Catholics to get sacraments from Schismatics when they did not have access to Catholic clergy. In as much as some Schismatics have valid sacraments, which by right belong to Catholics, and which by right do not belong to Schismatics, provided there is no danger of scandal, it appears it was a tolerable evil. Ditto for the sixth post.
I would like to get more info on #2, #3, #4.
#5 looks like it was for those who did not approve of schism, and during a time of turmoil and confusion for the laity.
Where has the Catholic Church allowed the Blessed Sacrament to be given to non-Catholic public sinners (pro-choice Bill Clinton, the divorced and remarried Ronald Reagan was another example), especially those who do NOT believe in the real presence? When is it lawful to give the Blessed Sacrament to those whose public stand is for the killing of babies in the womb (Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi)?
It does support Sedevacantism because it is impossible for the true Church to approve such evil laws. As far as first verifying that the non-Catholic isn’t an adulterer, I suppose that this would fall under the non-Catholic needing to be “properly disposed”, so I don’t think that would be a fair argument.
Actually, I don’t think it falls under “properly disposed,” since everyone knows e.g. Orthodox are allowed to divorce and remarry according to their church. So even JPII would have known that if that was included in being properly disposed, being Catholic would be included too. But he assumes they are not subjectively guilty for not being Catholic, and likewise he would assume they are not guilty for being divorced and remarried. Francis is just extending the same idea.
Wow, that’s interesting. I never knew those things were permitted. There must have been a good reason.
We have had modernists for decades. We have had Vatican II for decades. The take over took place at the conclave of 1958, nearly 60 years ago. What is your point?
The Vat.II sect can do whatever they like with canon law just as Luther did with Holy Scripture. The Church is in the catacombs and has been since Roncalli. Nothing should surprise the faithful. A friend of mind told me she entered her parish church back in the day to find statues removed, the altar rail removed , the liturgy changed and a folk singer replacing the choir . Being an abused child, church was her only sanctuary she told me I felt I was robbed of that sanctuary ” I new Christ was no longer there, I left and never returned , but I still remained a Catholic and I await the return of the true Church to those building that were stolen.”
Dear Sedevacantists, Some questions
1. What would have been your position if you had been alive during the great western Schism?
2. The catholics loyal to one or the other Pope, which ones chose the wrong Pope and what happened to them in your opinion
3. Is the situation today different, we have a man called Pope Francis causing a lot of confusion and a post Vatican 2 church which is just terrible, but was it any better in the past? and How can you be sure that after the great schism the real Pope was eventually chosen?
4. There were other anti Popes in history during the great western Schism, so why do you trust the Popes since the western Schism?
Stepping out of the Bark of St Peter, rejecting the Pope in Rome as the chosen Pope is a decision that cannot be taken lightly. Did God not choose these Popes and Anti Popes during the great western Schism?
Hi Paul,
I think each person must find his own way through this crisis using the light that God gives him, beginning with the light of reason. At this point any sane person, Catholic or not, can see that the Vatican II religion is a rebellion against the pre-V2 Catholic religion. So if we want to be Catholic nowadays without losing our sanity, we have to reject the new religion and attempt to explain how the Church remains the one, holy, Catholic, apostolic Church of God. That’s where sedevacantism comes in; if the V-2 “popes” were legitimate, the Church would have defected, so they aren’t legitimate.
I’ve never heard it said that God chooses popes and antipopes. It’s true that Divine Providence watches over the Church and the world, but God allows bad things to happen because He can turn them to a greater good.
I agree that to reject the Vatican II church LOOKS like a Protestant revolt, but we have to care about the reality rather than the appearance. To reject what is manifestly false and evil is not a revolt against God; rather, it is a moral duty. I think this is where most Catholics failed so badly in the 20th century. Nobody expects them to become theologians and figure everything out, but they sure could have protested publicly and vocally when their churches and schools were taken over by falsehood and evil, and if that didn’t work, they could have left them empty and penniless. But instead they embraced the corruption, so that nowadays the “Catholic” youth are hardly distinguishable from heathens.
During the Great Western schism, all that most people could do was follow their local clergy. If they recognized the wrong man as pope, this was a simple mistake, not a sin, nor did such a mistake tend to lead people into sin.
Your comment and quote is interesting but you seem to defeat the case for sedevacantism with your quote “But if it should occur that, by a schism, several popes are elected at the same time, it does not seem necessary for salvation to believe that this or that one in particular is the true pope, but just in general whichever of them was canonically elected. The people are not obliged to know who was canonically elected, just as they are not obliged to know canon law; in this matter they may follow the judgment of their superiors and prelates.”St Antonius
You imply that nobody can or should determine who really is or isn’t the pope. That’s not correct. Just because many people may not be able to figure it out for themselves doesn’t mean that nobody can.
Even the anti-sedevacantists should admit this, because they say a council of bishops must declare the See vacant. Obviously the bishops must have formed the judgment that the See is vacant before they can declare it to be so. (The declaration only acknowledges the fact; it would not cause a true pope to lose his office. No authority on earth can deprive a legitimate pope of his office.)
You know during the great western schism there are Saints on both sides of the argument, St Vincent Ferrer on one side andSt Catherine of Siena on the other. For a Sedevacantist it would be illogical that both could be saints if one supported an anti Pope
What’s illogical about it?
It’s possible for a good Catholic to be innocently mistaken about the identity of the pope. To be a sedevacantist in these times doesn’t imply the contrary. What’s not possible is for a good Catholic to defend, support, praise, agree with, join in the wholesale destruction of the Catholic religion and those who are responsible for it. If a papal claimant during the Great Western schism had been an enemy of truth, goodness, beauty, holiness, and decency like the Vatican II revolutionary “popes”, then it could not have been saintly to support him.
Not to take anything away from Eric H’s reply because he was spot on. However, I’ll give my 2 cents worth to add to his great answer that may shed more light to your questions…
1. My position during the Great Western Schism probably would have been the same as those that lived in that day but I would have followed St. Vincent Ferrer and held on to every word he said due to his miracles and knowledge. Btw, he was the first sedevacantist who rejected them all at the end of his life!
2. We still don’t know who was the true Pope during the Great Western Schism. Rev.Francis X Doyle, S.J. explains: “The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible, and hence, where there is any doubt about whether a person has been legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the visible head of Christ’s Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: ‘A doubtful
Pope must be considered as not Pope’; and Suarez, S.J., says: ‘At the time of the Council of Constance there were three men claiming to be Pope…. Hence, it could have been that not one of them was the true Pope, and in that case, there was no Pope at all….” The Defense of the Catholic Church, 1927.
3. The situation today is different from the Great Western Schism insofar as the claimant to the papacy today is clearly not Catholic unlike the 1400’s when they were all Catholic.
4. We know for sure who the true pope was after all of the false ones stepped down or died and the last one was universally recognized and he was Catholic. Today, all the Vatican 2 popes are antiCatholics. That’s were the difference lies.
5. Forget about lightly, we are never allowed to step out of the Bark of Peter, ever! God allows popes and antipopes to be chosen. He doesn’t necessarily choose any of them directly. However, the Vatican 2 popes can’t possible be true since they are anti-Catholic apostates who
reject the Catholic publicly.
Pre-Vatican 2 Lay Catholics weren’t necessarily any smarter either. Most all of us sedevacantists were once Novus Ordo’s who woke up and realized we had been duped as our “popes” created a new religion that’s not really Catholic. For many of us, it was hard to see it at first, but thanks to God’s grace and good info out there, we were enlightened and realized that we had no choice but to withdraw our obedience since they were not really our popes anyway. We must obey Christ and the teachings of the Catholic Church which don’t allow us to recognize public heretics as popes regardless if the rest of the world says otherwise.
You know during the great western schism there are Saints on both sides of the argument, St Vincent Ferrer on one side andSt Catherine of Siena on the other. For a Sedevacantist it would be illogical in fact impossible that both could be saints if one supported an anti Pope. Both men could not be Pope so one was definitely an anti Pope, so following your logic how could they both be Catholic. If an anti Pope from the past can still be Catholic as you claim then so can Pope Francis be Catholic. Your arguments are Not watertight, There seems to be cracks in your arguments. What you say is not logical. And by the way Vincent Ferrer supported the Anti Pope, so you would have been on the side of the Anti Pope in history.
“All the separated parties believed in the divinely constituted authority of the Roman See, and in the necessity of visible communion with the universal Church in subjection to it. but the supporters of an antipope recognised a pretender in place of the rightful pontiff. Many who belonged to such a schismatical communion, may no doubt be supposed to have been invincibly ignorant of their error, for it was very difficult under the circumstances to obtain correct information. This ignorance—that is, ignorance not attributable to their own fault—would exculpate such persons from the guilt of formal schism, though it could not rescue them from their external position of material schism, however involuntary on their part. Even saints were misled on that sad occasion, and St. Vincent Ferrer for a considerable time was a follower of Peter de Luna, though he was finally undeceived.”
—The Visible Unity of the Catholic Church Maintained Against Opposite Theories, Vol. II. (Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, 1870).
There are no cracks in my argument. They’re solid!
It would not be illogical for a saint to support an antipope since we have those saints. But what side had the antipope, Rome or Avignon? I provided the quote that indicates that we don’t know for sure.
St .Vincent eventually rejected them all in the end anyway. He became a sedevacantist. Look it up. And you don’t know for sure if Ferrer ever sided with an antipope since we don’t know who was the antipopes for sure. They may all have been antipopes. It’s all only opinions.
Saints can be mistaken about who the true pope is just as many saints have been mistaken about key doctrines. Therefore, you can be still be Catholic and wrong. You’re missing the point about Francis and antipopes. One can be an antipope for different reasons. Antipopes in the past held the Catholic Faith and Antipope Francis does not.
Thanks for your reply, I appreciate you taking the time to explain you’d points, God bless
Hello, Paul
Try the relatively new site, Trad Forum (someone recommended it on the thread that we were all squabbling on). It’s largely sedevacantist but there are people like you on there, too, and it’s a much freer format than this website. You’ll still get sarcastic (or as you like to put it – “uncharitable”) people like me replying to you but it doesn’t seem to me that you would in any way be shut down (so far, so good, at least).
Anna Mack, thanks for your reply. I can imagine that no one turns to Sedevacantism lightly, you need to be 100% convinced that it is the right decision, because when you step out of the visible Bark of St Peter by rejecting the Popes after V2 then you are basically acting like a Protestant. I know that you will say that you are staying with the church as it was ( thats also what Protestants believe). I am trying to get my head around all the information, what I have found out about the Popes since V2 is shocking. The Novus Ordo Website believe the 3 rd secret of Fatima could relate to the take over of the Vatican by an Anti Pope. who knows , seems it could be that, but what if God s punishing Catholics as Mary warned, if this is a chastisement. These men who physically sit in the chair of St Peter who we call Popes may be sowing all sorts of falsehoods and trying to destroy the church, is it our position to step out and say “he’s not my Pope” Maybe it is , maybe that is exactly what is expected of us, but maybe its not, maybe we have to fight from within the body of the church, accept that w have this terrible situation and work together to solve the problem. Sedevacantists get a lot of criticism from trads, this is what one priest describes you as “PS: One word of caution, do be careful of the streams you drink from. Sedevacantism poisons the soul. And before you urge me to read them, I have, and they are sincere, but they are also sincerely wrong. They are modern day ultramontane papal positivists who are stuck in circular logic.” Would you care to comment on that opinion?
I appreciate the support of Burning Eagle Eric H and Lee etc giving links to find out more. I also appreciate your directness, I am navigating my way through this with the Rosary… Keep searching too Anna Mack, just because you have found what you think is right, listen to others who criticise your opinion, you may discover something you didn’t realise, the Devil will use all sorts of tools to trick, and he can fool intelligent people just as much as simple people. God bless and may God bring us each day closer to him.
Paul your sincerity is great and I admire your search for the truth, but I think you still have this idea in your head that the Vatican II popes are the bark of St. Peter. If they are then we wouldn’t be sedevacantist. Like 2c3n1 said “forget about lightly, we are never allowed to step out of the Bark of Peter, ever!” Francis I believes in Vatican II. Francis thinks the way he does because of Vatican II and the times which have changed since then (The early 1960’s). According to him nobody has the truth (especially him) and blasphemy is his second language. That priest you said who says “sedevacantism poisons the soul… and that we are ultramontane papal positivists who are stuck in circular logic” is not any any better condition himself because his pope and his Vatican II Church are the poison of millions due to day by day apostasy. Keep praying the Rosary (excluding the luminous mysteries) and read papal encyclicals such as Mortalium Animos by Pope Pius XI or Satis Cognitum by Leo XIII and you will see how the Church then is not the same as now.
Lee Thankyou for your comments. Please read my comments to 23cn1 because his logic Is floored. He contradicts himself, an anti Pope from the great western schism can be Catholic according to him but not Pope Francis … no logic there
Sorry for the delay, I’ve been busy for the last couple days. I will answer as follows:
Anti-popes can be unlawfully elected, but they still can profess the Catholic religion. For example St. Hippolytus was the first anti-pope when Pope St. Pontian was still alive and who was the real pope. How did St. Hippolytus become a saint? Interestingly enough the real pope St. Pontian and Hippolytus were sent to die together in Sardinia in the mines under the emperor Maximus Thrax where they both were tortured and died on the same day and it has always been held that St. Hippolytus recognized him as the true pope and recanted of his own unlawful election during that time in exile.
So no contradiction from 2C3N1 on that point because there are not only other examples but also the difference between the Great Western Schism and today. That difference is that there was a real pope some where but it took 50 years to figure it out. Now its been almost 60 years and not only is there no other true rival pope (that we know of) but none of the cardinals or bishops in the novus ordo are Catholic because they profess everything they believe to be Catholic AFTER Vatican II. Vatican II was the problem and still is the problem and all “popes” since John XXIII have not fixed the problem because they themselves are the enemy and the problem.
St. Vincent Ferrer was very disturbed when he found out the pope he was following for the longest time was not the true (he followed antipope Benedict XIII) but once he realized he was not the one he withdrew his submission just like any Catholic should do once he’s aware.
Sedevacantism for today is necessary because if Francis is the pope then you must submit to him for salvation according to what Popes have said in the past on this teaching, particularly, Pope Boniface VIII and not just say it (that you submit) and do your own thing like many trad Catholics do.
Lee, I really appreciate you taking the time with your explanation, thank you God bless
No problem Paul. I’ll keep you in my prayers. To be honest I wish we did have a true pope today but as Christ said in Matthew 26 “All you shall be scandalized in me this night. For it is written: I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered.” It doesn’t mean the gates of hell have prevailed because if Francis I is the pope then they have but it means we are dependent on Christ who is the Head of His Church when his vicar is not present.
Lee if we have no real church at the Vatican, how do you expect there to ever be a new pope? All Cardinals I guess are also false, so what is the answer? I agree we have a very strange Pope at the moment, but the only way this can be resolved is if a Pope was elected who outlines all the problems since V2 and then got things back to a pre V 2 state, that can only be done with the existing college of Cardinals
Paul,
The college of cardinals is only necessary for the election of the Pope by church law, not by divine law. A church law that can no longer be fulfilled automatically ceases. This is issue about how to get a Pope back is addressed by Fr. Cekada in this video:
https://novusordowatch.org/2013/09/why-sedevacantism-cekada/
Ah, Paul, you naughty little NOites are all the same – wilfully misunderstanding everything that is said to you. I refer you to the replies from Lee and Eric H about stepping out of the Bark of Peter – we didn’t (that’s what the NO did). No one lightly embraces sedevacantism for the simple reason that, once you actually learn about the Faith, it turns your life upside down, since it starts to inform every aspect of it. Bp Sanborn, in one of his podcasts, said that people who discover traditionalism and actually start to practice the Faith find that “their whole lives blow up” (he laughed after he said that). I can understand why that scares you – it’s pretty scary for any of us who have previously enjoyed living totally unCatholic lives.
Would I care to comment on the opinion of a faux priest who talks like a social studies lecturer at a third rate polytechnic (how he must love and admire Jorge!)? No.
Your theory on God appointing “anti-popes” (really, make your mind up – is Jorge your “pope” or not?) is not just absurd but blasphemous. You are effectively saying that Our Lord sets out to corrupt souls and lead them into Hell. Really? Really??? God does not appoint popes. We have free will, which means that we are free to tread our own rotten paths but God does not drive us down them (ie God *permits* evil to occur but He is most definitely not the *source* of it).
Thank you for your advice to continue searching for truth. I learn a little more of the Faith every day, and everything that I learn brings me back to sedevacantism as the only logical explanation of our current predicament (it certainly makes a lot more sense to me than your terrible R&R theory that God is basically evil).
I will add you to my prayer list.
Thanks for your comments Anna Mack. Fools rush in where heroes fear to tread. I am only asking questions, what do you think about somebody wanting to have a person tortured? Is that good or evil? I guess you’d say evil, but God willed his own son to be tortured to death. The passion of Christ is a mystery, the mystical passion of the body of Christ is also a mystery. Can you tell which Pope you would have chosen had you been alive during the great western Schism, which side would you have chosen the pope in Italy or the one in France. Anna Mack please remember something we are on the same side, we are both searching for the Truth. It needs to be a sincere search some say Sede’s are sincere but they are sincerely wrong, you would say the same about us NO. Thanks for adding me to your prayer list, I’ll remember to pray for you in my Rosary today, we need to work out our salvation, the best way is praying for it and invoking our Blesed Mother and her Son. God bless and may God bring us each day closer to him. Don’t forget to answer my question regarding the great schism, I want to know what side you (and other sedevacantists ) would have taken.
Once again with the wilful misunderstanding, which is becoming really quite tiresome. I’m not going round the mulberry bush again.
In answer to what I would have done at the time of the Great Western Schism, that is a largely pointless question, since it’s unlikely that the average person would have been in a position to take an informed stance. As to what I think now, I have to stick with the traditional teaching that “a doubtful pope is no pope”, and all lines seem to have been doubtful during that time (no doubt others will disagree).
Thank you for your prayers.
So now you are saying there was no Pope at that time… where’s the logic in your argument? there OBVIOUSLY was a Pope. Who actually qualifies to doubt if there is a Pope or not, is it based on your personal opinion? I am not an expert in these matters but there is a lack of logic in your arguments Anna , I think you are going round the Mulberry Bush because what you are realizing is that it’s actually quite a challenge to presume that you know for sure if a Pope is really a Pope…
Paul, I’m sure that you’re not really as obtuse as you are trying to make yourself look. As NOW said, conversation with someone who “simply does not WANT to be a sedevacantist, regardless of the evidence” is futile. You’ve used up all my (admittedly limited) patience, and I’m now not merely vaguely irritated but – and far worse – bored. If you would like to count your last post as you having the final word on the subject, please do so with my blessing.
God Bless and Mary keep.
It’s that’s simple for you…”he just doesn’t want to know”… that’s the difference between you and I. I want to know therefore I think and I ask questions, challenge your position . You on the other hand just think you know it and when faced with a question that challenges your position that you can’t answer you get irritated and bored. How does a bored irritated person actually look? I think you are lost, you are rejecting Apostolic succession of the one true Faith and you don’t have the grounds upon which to explain or convince anyone of your argument, which you should because it’s your eternal soul you are playing games with.
Anna Mack please read my comments to Lee and also 2c3n1. I see cracks appearing in your arguments for sedevacantism.
Dear Friends at NOW I have been discussing sedevacantism on onepeterfive website with reference to an article from a priest called Fr Rp. I have tried to explain your position in order for the points you raise tone given a fair discussion. Steve Skojec of 1P5 is quite open for dialogue but is somewhat intolerant of Sedevacantism, here is the link, perhaps read the article and add some comments, if it brings us all closer to the Truth it can only be a good thing God bless https://onepeterfive.com/on-pastoral-fear/
Dear Paul,
Thank you. I commend you for your efforts. It is futile to talk to Steve Skojec about Sedevacantism (I do on occasion on Twitter). Over the past year or two, Steve has made it clear that he simply does not WANT to be a sedevacantist, regardless of the evidence. It is tragic but there are none so blind as those who refuse to see. Pray for him.
Dear Novus Ordo watch, I think it is never futile to talk with other Catholics in our search for the Truth, in fact Prayer as you suggest is the best, but charitably searching and being humble enough to accept we can be wrong is essential. We need to first identify as Catholics, not first identify as one of the names of the different factions or theological arguments that are appearing. The Great western Schism, has me questioning the water tightness of the Sedevacantism arguments, you can note my comments above. I don’t write this to be uncharitable or to doubt your sincerity in your search for the Truth. One nagging issue which has always concerned me about Sedevacantism is why God would abandon the whole Catholic flock (I am talking about practising Catholics) and only save Sedevacantists.why would he abandon those who sincerely and obediently have followed the the Catholic Church.
The answer is he wouldn’t it seems St Athanasius had the answer “But if it should occur that, by a schism, several popes are elected at the same time, it does not seem necessary for salvation to believe that this or that one in particular is the true pope, but just in general whichever of them was canonically elected. The people are not obliged to know who was canonically elected, just as they are not obliged to know canon law; in this matter they may follow the judgment of their superiors and prelates.” (St. Antoninus, pars 3, tit. 22, cap. 2, cited by John Lane in The Question of Assistance at the Mass of a Priest Who Professes Communion With John Paul II as Pope)”
The great Western Schism seems to reveal cracks in your arguments, please note I am not saying this to win any argument, that is not the point, I am saying this so that together we can arrive at the Truth. If you have a moment to read the discussion above you will see there is a lack of logic from the historical context for sedevacantism argument concerning Popes and anti Popes both being Catholic and Saints who supported anti Popes also being Catholic and saints, etc. For sedevacantism this is not logical.
Anyway as I say this is only to help us both find our way to the Truth, God bless.
You neglect to mention that none of those men put themselves outside the Church by preaching heresy. St Athanasius was not talking about heretics, so the two situations are not remotely comparable.
So claiming to be Pope when you are not Pope is not heretical?
Go back and look at how the Schism came about.
No, of course not. It is wrong, it is potentially schismatic, but it has nothing to do with denying dogma.
Paul, I think you should follow the advice of Prof. Roberto de Mattei found in his most recent essay at Rorate Caeli:
“In short, every Catholic is called upon to choose whether to side with Pope Francis and the Jesuits of today, or be alongside the Jesuits of yesterday and the Popes of all time.”
And when you decide to do that, see if you can get De Mattei and Rorate Caeli to do it, too.
Paul,
Yes, it IS futile to talk to others when they are not interested in the conversation, or they have the conversation for some other motive than arriving at the truth. Conversation is only profitable if the will does not place an obstacle to what the intellect understands.
You say “We need to first identify as Catholics”. While this always sounds good, it is really not a useful thing to say, because ALL sides “identify as Catholics” and yet they cannot all be right. Richard Rohr claims to be a Catholic; Michael Voris claims to be one; John Vennari claimed to be one; Robert Barron thinks he is one; Feeneyites insist they are Catholic; and we sedevacantists claim to be Catholics. So this isn’t about “identifying as Catholics first” – the real problem is to identify what IS genuinely Catholic, and that can only be one thing, and not all sorts of contradictory ideas together.
The challenge of “why would God allow this?” is answered in 2 Thessalonians 2 and in Matthew 24 and in the general teachings about God’s Providence, particularly with regard to the rise of the Antichrist. Why does God allow THAT? Ultimately, because it is conducive to His glory and to the salvation of the elect. That’s all we need to know. As I already quoted from Isaias, “My thoughts are above your thoughts,” God says.
Nor is there a question of which Catholic was elected the true Pope. We are not dealing here with claimants to the Papacy who are Catholics. We are dealing with public heretics for the most part and those who have already proved, by many of their actions, that they cannot be valid Popes.
So, there really is no comparison whatsoever to the Great Western Schism.
Sadly, I think that Paul definitely wants to have the conversation “for some other motive than arriving at the truth”.
I might add that sedevacantists adhere to what the church has always taught in her ordinary universal magisterium and her extraordinary magisterium. The Catholic Church clearly and distinctly defined what is and what is not Catholic. You, Paul, need to study the Catholic Faith first, before trying to argue.
Please get a good catechism (Like Deharbe’s, or the one I like is Exposition of Christian Doctrine (3 volumes: Dogma, Moral, Worship). The three volume set is not available anymore, but the abridgement is available: https://www.forgottenbooks.com/en/books/ManualofChristianDoctrine_10140206.
Then I would also suggest you study the Enchiridion Symbolorum (in English it can be obtained as Sources of Catholic Dogma) https://www.amazon.com/Sources-Catholic-Dogma-Henry-Denzinger/dp/1930278225.
I must say, what good was it for the popes and councils to use language like “if anyone should say… let him be anathema,” if we cannot act on those canons?
Read St. Pius X’s Anti-Modernist oath. It is totally foreign to what is proposed today as Catholic.
You need to know what the Catholic faith is, before you can start arguing about it.
Please start educating yourself in what was always and everywhere the Catholic religion. A blog is not the place to try to teach you the Catholic Faith. But, it is obvious that you need that instruction, as is evidenced by your questions and remarks. It is why we appear to you to be so arrogant, and so ticked-off.
The problem of today is not in trying to decide which person is canonically elected as pope. The problem today is that we have men who parade around acting like they are Catholic popes when they are at best charletans. These men are heretics. The “election” of Roncalli, may very well have been invalid due to the various machinations that occurred in order to procure his “election.” Certainly it was invalid because he was a non-Catholic. He was a favorite of Communists and Freemasons, a guy who threw out all traditional schemas for the council and replaced them with garbage, a guy who wrote Pacem in Terris (overthowing the Church’s teaching on religious liberty), which the Jews and Freemasons absolutely loved. You can know a guy by the friends he keeps. Roncalli had excommunicated Modernists as his best friends. He chummed around with Communists and Freemasons.
It does not matter if you had relatives who had JP2’s picture on their wall. Read and study what JP2 said and did. He was the opposite of a Saint, and was CERTAINLY a non-Catholic. The miracles of Christ do not prove Christ’s Divinity, according to JP2, and St. John the Baptist did not know Christ was the Messias (heretical sermon in a Lutheran Church by Wojtyla on Dec 11, 1983, second sunday of advent).
It is really easy: What is taught by the Vatican II Church hierarchy is NOT in conformity to what the Catholic Church consistently taught from St. Peter through pope Pius XII. As a matter of fact, much of what they teach has been specifically condemned by the Catholic Church, some of it nearly word for word (Quanta Cura of Pius IX and his syllabus of errors is a great example). Therefore this new hierarchy (including the so called popes) are usurpers of Catholic positions and offices. They are enemies sowing cockle. They are hijackers. They are religious terrorists, bent on the eradication of the Church. They have no authority.
You have to make a decision: Is the Vatican II religion the same as the Catholic Religion from 33 to 1958? If it is the same, then you should become an ardent supporter of it. You should embrace it. You should adhere to every word from Jorge as well as from his predeceesors back to Roncalli. You should love their vestments, their balloons, their tango Masses, their beach balls, etc. You should love and respect the hierarchy. You should embrace Amoris Laetitia as if it came from Christ himself. You should be a whole-hog Vatican II adherent.
But if you are of the opinion that the new religion, the “Cult of Man” as Montini called it, the poisonous religion injected into the veins of the Catholic Church since the election of Roncalli, is different from the Catholic religion from 33 to 1958, then it is your duty to reject all of it, and all of its proponents. There is no middle ground. The middle ground (R&R position) always involves heresy with regard to the doctrines of the papacy and the church.
After studying the stuff I mentioned, you should come to the knowledge that the Vatican II religion is NOT: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. It is rather pluralistic, impious and blasphemous, not universal with regard to time or place, and certainly not what the apostles and their successors preached.
That was a splendid post, BurningEagle – thank you. Sadly, it is pearls before Paul – he’s not listening – he’s too busy running as far as he can (wind at his heels) in the opposite direction of the truth.
Anna Mack: Thanks.
Let’s not chase him away. But let’s encourage him to get educated. After all, he should make an educated decision. His salvation depends on it.
There are plenty of things on N.O.W. by which he can learn more. There are interviews with Bishop Sanborn and others. In addition, there are the standard catechisms used before all the rot happened: DeHarbe’s etc. There is Denzinger’s Enchiridion. There are encyclicals, especially Mortalium Animos, Quanta Cura, Pascendi, etc. I really like St. Pius X’s anti-modernist oath, because its attitude or mood is 180 degrees out of phase with the modern rot. When one reads it, one immediately knows why they got rid of it when they did. It no longer fits in with the new religion.
He should study the traditional faith, before making arguments, and not force everyone else to be his tutor. A blog is a horrible way to conduct a catechism course. The cathechism should be learned just like any other structured study, one goes from the simple to the complex, the known to what has yet to be learned, the rudiments to the subtleties etc. A blog is no place for that.
I’m happy to encourage and support people who are genuinely seeking truth. Paul’s circular arguments just suggest to me that he is engaged in no such activity. Frankly, I think he’s here for the craic.
That said, I totally agree that a blog is not a great place to learn the catechism. If I’m wrong and he *is* genuine, I think I’d recommend starting with “A Brief Catechism For Adults: A Complete Handbook on How to be a Good Catholic” by Fr William Cogan before moving on to Deharbe.
He MAY be an eighteen year old youth who is full of whatever he should not be full. And he MAY be typical of modern youths who look for heroic humility in others, but who inwardly are full of conceit and vanity.
I like to give the benefit of the doubt, yet at the same time politely “calling his bluff,” so to speak. He may be converted by the overwhelming evidence, and start conforming his mind and attitudes to those of Holy Mother Church. But if he is as you suspect, and refuses to study, and rejects the overwhelming evidence, I think it would be proper to let fly all sorts of invectives. That’s just my opinion. Time will tell. His nasty response to me with regard to the stupid protest of the youths in the Brussels Cathedral, seems to indicate he is as you say.
You may be 100% correct in your assessment. Regardless, it is up to him to start learning the faith.
It is very trying for us to argue with those who know nearly nothing of the catechism, nearly nothing of church history, nearly nothing of basic Catholic morality, etc. Many young people have no clue about the life of the Church prior to the modern rot. In addition, many modern youths were raised by parents who did not instill and enforce a healthy respect for authority, elders, Catholic cultural norms, and general decent decorum.
Properly raised youths would see the content of the N.O.W. and start studying what was held by church prior to the revolution of 1958, and what was rejected by the church prior to the rot. They would study as best they can, and then, if necessary, politely ask for assistance in problems they cannot reconcile on their own. But in this modern age, we are not dealing with properly raised children.
Everything (I mean everything), has been corrupted or twisted in some manner.
Burning eagle, are you an Indian chief? Do you live in a Tippee tent, do you hunt buffalo with a bow and arrow, I hope you make your own arrows. You see either your are a full blown American Indian chief with the name Great Eagle or you just hide behind that name. Is that the name on your pay check Great Eagle, or is it just the name you HIDE behind to show your belief? Your statements are so arrogant that you make about my person, you who hide behind a “nickname” start making your statements with your full name if you have an ounce off decency stop hiding behind you pseudonyms, it’s so incredibly arrogant…. so what’s your excuse for notputting your real name behind your beliefs… pay check is it your career ? Same question to Novus Ordo watch and Anna Mac and Lee and all you people who pretend to stand for something. Use your REAL NAMES or stop posting you spineless cowards. Put your real names in your posts before you preach to others.
You sir, are not stable. I think you should find a blog spot more in accord with your beliefs. It is precisely that kind of lunacy which necessitates people keeping their identity private. What difference is it to you what my name is, what I look like, or any other personal information?
I notice your picture is very clear.
I would suggest finding an R&R website moderated by The Remnant, or some such publication.
In any event, I wish you well.
Mr Eagle ,you are sadly acting very judgemental, you place yourself above others, as the “big chief” and have the arrogance to use this blog to analyze and judge others together with your colleague like Anna Mac instead of what is discussed . That is very un-charitable. I do appreciate your advice and knowledge about what to read but I do not appreciate how you feel you can judge others you have never met and know absolutely nothing about. You do this by hiding behind a nick name. Those are not the actions of a real Catholic.
Lol. I think I had the right of it, BurningEagle…
He may enjoy both the craic and the crack.
ROFL.
Read my comment to burning Eagle
Great Eagle?
I am sorry. You were correct.
Although, I didn’t quite expect *that* reaction from him. Gosh.
If only I could live up to the heights of charity and humility which he exemplifies.
Reading your posts is a regular delight to me, BurningEagle 😉
That is a very strong assessment and I can empathize with a lot of what you state, here. As I said to Anna, I for myself do not believe I am of authority or competence, to decide (for myself) who is and who is not valid. I do like your comment, however, about Churchmen and how they present themselves. Very true.
There is only one path to salvation and that is via the unchanging Catholic Church. I think that you would find it useful to follow BurningEagle’s advice to Paul.
God bless you, too 🙂
Depends on who you ask. But you’re right, we can’t create our own hierarchy. However, it’s not necessarily true that a pope can only be elected by the hierarchy. We have true popes that were not elected by the hierarchy.
Sebastian, thanks for all your comments, you are absolutely correct when you speak of being charitable to one another, God bless
Sebastian: You can act on the Church’s infallible judgements. Take a look at what the Roman Catholic Church has taught regarding indefectibility, infallibility, heresy, schism, etc. Start comparing what was always taught and believed to what has been pushed since Vatican II.
Maybe start with Mortalium Animos by Pius XI, regarding ecumenism. It is opposite to what is taught today in the Novus Ordo. Read Pius IX’s Quanta Cura and his syllabus of errors. It is in some cases word for word opposite to what is taught today. Read the Oath Against Modernism, by St. Pius X.
Anything worth pursuing has some difficulties in it. Get some good instruction. Get some good high school or college level catechism books from the past and start learning what was always and everywhere the norms of the Church. Set some time every week to learn from Catholic books from days gone by.
You will find the judgement has already been made for you.
When you go to the market to buy produce, you select what you want based on criteria which you have learned. You don’t blindly get just any tomatoes or just any cantaloupe, but rather you make judgements based on what you have learned concerning what you should buy. You look at the food, and you refuse to buy moldy or rotten food. You refuse to buy fruit with spots on it, or cantaloupes that are too hard, or too soft and mushy. You are being judgmental. It is proper for humans to be judgmental. (It is a sin for humans to rashly judge.)
Therefore, learn the criteria which the Church gives you for making judgements concerning these things.
Once you have studied a good catechism, and once you start studying Denzinger (Sources of Catholic Dogma), you will not think it is so difficult. You have the 2000 year old Church to lean on.
Example: What good was it for the First Vatican Council to declare: “If any one shall say… that miracles can never be known with certitude, and that the divine origin of the Christian religion cannot be correctly proved by them: let him be anathema” (Denz 1813)??? That canon anathematizes John Paul II who preached in a Lutheran Church on December 11, 1983, the Second Sunday of Advent, and stated that the miracles of Christ do not prove Christ’s divinity but they (the miracles) only hint at it. I remember reading the L’Osservatore Romano (English version) when it happened. It solidified permanently sedevacantism in me. I had no doubt from that day forth. He also erroneously preached that St. John The Baptist was not sure if Jesus Christ was the Messias. This is a huge error. St. John The Baptist preached that he was not worthy to loose the latch on our Lord’s sandal. He pointed Him out as the Lamb of God, he heard the voice from Heaven, and he saw the Dove. He said, “He must increase, and I must decrease,” etc.
You have an intellect. It is what sets you apart from brute animals. GOD DESIRES YOU TO USE IT. Good examinations of conscience from Catholic books before the rot reminded Catholics it was their DUTY to learn their faith under pain of sin.
There is a reason for the Church to have taught so many things in Her councils, in Her Papal Bulls and Encyclicals, in her great theologians and her Saints, in her catechisms and other works. It is so that we be instructed. But we have to do our part, and study these materials.
The Church has taught positively by showing what the Catholic Faith is, and negatively by pointing out what are heresies and errors (what the Catholic Faith is not). We are bound to learn it.
Protestants think they are on the right path. So do Greek Orthodox. The objective fact of the matter is that there can only be one path to God, and that is the path which He established.
So, regardless of the subjective motives of various individuals, the objective reality must be pursued.
It is not a question of corruption, though. One can be corrupt (in mortal sin) and still be a Catholic and therefore still be a valid hierarch. The issue isn’t one of sinfulness per se but of not professing the true Faith. Despite all their faults, the Pharisees professed the true religion at the time. When they definitively rejected Christ as the Messias, they apostatized and therefore lost their offices, as St. Jerome teaches:
“And by this rending [of] his garments, [Caiaphas] shews that the Jews have lost the priestly glory, and that their High Priest’s throne was vacant. For by rending his garment he rent the veil of the Law which covered him” (Commentary on Matthew 26:65).
Pope Pius XII made clear that not all sins lead by their very nature to a loss of Church membership, but some do: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy” (Mystici Corporis, n. 23).
Consider also the argument from history, for example, regarding Pope John XII:
https://novusordowatch.org/2014/03/bad-popes-argument/
That, I believe, is what I meant by corruption. They might have been professing the of the time, but not long prior to that Judaism followed the Torah as their guiding light, but my understanding (and what I was told by a priest) is that they veered off course onto the Talmud.