Response to ‘Tradition in Action’…

Podcast: Does Our Lady of Fatima Disprove Sedevacantism?

(TRADCAST EXPRESS 230)

Our latest podcast episode, TRADCAST EXPRESS 230, has been published.

The 31-minute installment is dedicated to responding to the post “Our Lady of Fatima Disproves Sede-Vacantism” by Daniel Bentley, which was recently published by the semi-traditionalist (i.e. recognize-and-resist) organization Tradition in Action.

Our refutation is carried out mostly on the level of principles: Catholic theology does not permit one to resolve a doctrinal question by appeal to private revelation, which is the category into which the 1917 apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima clearly fall.

Marking Fatima as private revelation is not to meant to disparage or dismiss it; it is simply meant to recognize its true status vis-à-vis Church teaching. Theological matters need clarity, and clarity comes from precise definitions and proper categorizations.

Whatever is communicated through private revelation, no matter how true or important it may be, does not constitute proper data for the science of Sacred Theology. To invoke the contents of an apparition, even a Church-approved one, to determine how one ought to react to the Vatican II religion or how to regard its executors, is to try to find a way around the doctrinal discussion, a shortcut meant to avoid having to deal with the actual subject matter.

It turns out, however, that Daniel Bentley’s case rests not simply on a Church-approved apparition, but on adjunct revelations the Church has never rendered a pronouncement on. We are talking about the detailed conditions the Blessed Virgin reportedly gave to Sr. Lucy of Fatima in 1929 regarding the requested papal consecration of Russia.

Once again we are not trying to dispute the authenticity of these later revelations to Sr. Lucy (1926 and 1929), we merely want to point out that, unlike the 1917 apparitions, these have not been given the official approval of the Church. Therefore, for Bentley to have his case hinge on the consecration and conversion of Russia, is not just inadmissible theologically, it is quite imprudent in the practical order because it ultimately rests on personal convictions, not on the authority of the Catholic Church.

In this TRADCAST EXPRESS 230, we also point out that turning to (one’s own interpretation of) private revelation is a slippery slope. If one can simply choose this as a substitute for what is the true standard we must follow — namely, Church doctrine — then what’s to keep one from choosing some other preferred source? Thus many semi-trads like to follow Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, Bp. Athanasius Schneider, Padre Pio, Fr. Chad Ripperger, Fr. Gregory Hesse, or Dr. Peter Kwasniewski instead of the person they claim is the Vicar of Christ. We show that this way of proceeding is not Catholic, not traditional, and not even coherent.

Don’t miss our latest program, TRADCAST EXPRESS 230. To listen, please use the player below (or click here for the direct YouTube link):

.
Those who prefer a direct link to the audio file can find it here.

The SHOW NOTES for TRADCAST EXPRESS 230 are as follows:

If you find our podcast informative and beneficial, please share it with others.

More TRADCAST EXPRESS can be found here; and our full-length, more elaborate TRADCAST episodes can be accessed here.

Image source: composite with elements from Shutterstock (Marco Sete and Ricardo Perna)
Licenses: paid

Share this content now:

No Comments

Be the first to start a conversation

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.