Vatican II, SSPX, and Sedevacantism

I have become convinced, based on a variety of sources read and my conclusions from the previous two posts, that the Catholic Church went wrong at the Second Vatican Council. Ostensibly held to realign the Church to “modernity”, Vatican II was hijacked by liberal elements within the Church hierarchy, and widespread changes followed. Most of the documents are vaguely written, Amoris Laetitia-style, and thus open to interpretation to varying degrees. The words are faithful to Church orthodoxy, but the practices that evolved out of them were unlike anything seen previously.

Vatican II ran from 1962 to 1965. Initiated by John XXIII, who died midway through, it culminated under Paul VI. The most radical development from the council was the “new mass,” the silly Novus Ordo mass, which premiered April 3, 1970.

Now. Assume for the sake of argument that the Church went off course between 1962 and 1970. That’s half a century of error, if one takes this position. What can be done?

Let’s consider Vatican II. Broadly speaking, one can believe the intentions were good but the results were mixed. Or one can believe the intentions were evil, as were the results. I have read passionate arguments from those who’ve held one or the other perspective, and though three-quarters or so of what I’ve read seems reasonable to me, my “gut” so far leans toward the first viewpoint. By about a 60-40 percentage breakdown.

This first viewpoint is held by the Society of St. Pius X, or SSPX. It is a traditionalist order within the Church, and does not participate in the Novus Ordo. Founded in 1970 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (“le-FEV”), the society stays steadfastly faithful to Church teaching and doctrine pre-1962. There is some kerfuffle over excommunication and such, because Lefebvre ordained four bishops without Vatican approval. The SSPX says the excommunication was invalid, and didn’t come from the Pope anyway, and the SSPX may have been welcomed back in to the Church by Benedict. I don’t know enough yet to weigh in one way or the other.

The second viewpoint is expressed by sedevacantists. The word is Latin and means “the Chair” sede “is vacant” vacante, referring to the Chair of St. Peter, i.e., the Pope. Sedevacantists claim the last true Pope was Pius XII, John XXIII’s predecessor. Why John is not a true Pope I haven’t been able to ascertain based on the stuff I’ve read, so I have not been convinced of this position. I think it has something to do with John espousing the heresy of Modernism (the concept of “Modernism” perhaps a subject of a future posts), and if that’s the case, then I see where the position comes from.

However, I do have an interest in exploring the pre-Vatican II church, especially papal documents, in light of the Church I grew up in and am now fairly discontented with. I am open to arguments from SSPX, sedevacantists, and even pro-Vatican II proponents, as this search continues on. And as always, if I come across anything that rings a certain bell within me, I’ll post it here. There’s a lot more learning I need to do concerning this subject, and it’s an important one to me.

Thank you, Francis.

Discontent in the Age of Francis

It seems to me …

On a macro level we have three broad forces cold war engaged with each other, each looking to dominate the others. There’s Christianity, which I associate with Western Civilization. There’s Modernity or what is known as Leftism, Progressivism or Liberalism (as exemplified in the United States). Then there’s Islam. We can nitpick, and perhaps I am overgeneralizing, but this seems to be the current state of Planet Earth in the early part of the twenty-first century.

Now, salvation aside, one thing I seek in a religion is a way to view / address / and possibly take a stand against the world. Approaching the half-century mark, I’ve had my successes and my failures, I’ve had my tango with hedonism and materialism, I’ve constantly had to come to grips with telos, or purpose, as in, “what’s mine?” Twenty years ago I began the slow movement towards reverting to the Catholic Church, and by and large, under the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict, I’ve gained some comfort from this, more than I ever did from hedonism, materialism, or any other ism.

Some, but not much. The primary drivers of this lack of fulfillment are twofold:

* The Catholic Church’s stance toward Modernism and Islam

* The contemporary Catholic mass

As for the first, again, consider my question of the last couple of days:

Is the Church converting the world, or is the world converting the Church?

What is the answer to this question? What do you think?

If the Church is not converting the world, why not?

It seems to me that the world is converting the Church under Francis, with Francis’ willing and active participation. Studies are out there showing a decline in numbers of those who attend liberal protestant churches. So now the Catholic Church decides it wants to liberalize and protestantize? (More on this topic in the next post.)

And Francis’s answer to Islam is – what, exactly? Certainly the polar opposite of Urban II’s. Open your arms, your doors, your borders wide for the Islamic horde. In the name of compassion. It remains to be seen what will become of Europe in twenty or fifty years, but I do not think I am being hyperbolic if I believe it may turn majority Muslim.

So I see my Church cooperating hand-in-hand with the advance of Modernity and Islam.

The second area that has gnawed at me for months and years is the Catholic mass. Specifically, the Novus Ordo mass, the mass created in the wake of Vatican II. Gone were the traditional masses in Latin, with the priest facing the altar, reenacting Christ’s sacrifice for us, for mankind. Incense and sacred music. Now we have the priest facing us. We have protestant hymns. We have drums and guitars. Goofy hippie Picasso Jesus art. Bad architecture regarding new houses of worship. We have “faith communities.” Communion in the hand. Flips flops, sneakers and jeans, sports jerseys. Sermons on being nice: Thou shalt be nice, for nice are the children of God.

Where is the mystery, the awe, the reverence, the transcendence? Who would give his life for this post-Vatican II claptrap? Thomas More, John Fisher, and nearly a thousand others went to the gallows in the English persecution because Pope Clement VII would not grant Henry VIII a divorce to marry Ann Boleyn. Guess Clement didn’t have as enlightened a view of divorce as Francis does. Again, who would give up his life for the Church of Nice?

So, week after week, month after month, I see the Church changing before my eyes, capitulating to the world, playing weak pawn moves to aggressive piece play by Modernism and Islam on the global chessboard. I see a disrespectful mass that is at best a teaching moment for the masses tossed aside, at worst a deliberate sacrilege of Our Lord’s sacrifice. I read books about Buddhism, Hinduism, way-out-there Protestant cults, searching for something – anything – that might help the world make sense or give me a fighting chance against it, but Christ calls me back time and time again.

What is to be done? What can be done?

More later …

Francis

For me, it started quite suddenly: the abrupt, irregular resignation of Benedict. For hundreds of years a Pope was Pope until death. Now, I am not a papal scholar, but something gnawed at me, the way things went down in March of 2013. Benedict pleading infirmity of age as a new office, Pope Emeritus, was created for the occasion.

Then, Francis became Pope. And all I heard was how humble he was. He didn’t wear the red papal shoes – humble! He’ll still be living in his own Vatican apartment – humble! He tips those who wait upon him with money from his own purse – humble! That, too, sat uneasily with me.

Next were the impromptu foot-in-mouth airplane interviews. The first – “Who am I to judge?” – while technically true in context, was used as fodder for the enemies of the Church. And still he babbled on and on. I have not a memory for the theological gaffes (or scandals, depending on one’s grounding in the faith), but I read them as they happened, one after the other. There are whole websites devoted to documenting these statements against traditional faith. Google them.

Now to the tipping point – Amoris laetitia, “The Joy of Love,” Francis’s take on how the Church should “pastorally” respond to contemporary sexual mores, released the beginning of April of 2016. Ghostwritten by a man of questionable orthodoxy, the document is deliberately written vague when it comes to the question of: Should the divorced and remarried be admitted to Holy Communion?

Or is it? Well, in addition to countless faithful and conservative Catholics laity, priests and bishops, four Cardinals seem to think so. Four months after the release of Amoris laetitia, these Cardinals – Caffarra, Brandmüller, Burke, and Meisner – sent a “Dubia” (Latin for “doubts”) to the Pope asking for clarification on five YES/NO questions pertaining to the Catholic faith in light of the papal document.

These five YES/NO questions are:

(i) Can adulterers receive Holy Communion?

(ii) Are there absolute moral norms that must be followed without exception?

(iii) Is habitual adultery an objective situation of grave habitual sin?

(iv) Can an intrinsically evil act be turned into a subjective good based on circumstances or intentions?

(v) Can one act contrary to known absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts based on conscience?

Sounds straightforward enough to me. According to traditional Catholic theology, the answer to each is NO. Upon reading Amoris laetitia, many felt the answers not to be so clear. Hence, the issuance of the Dubia.

There was no response from Francis.

The contents of the Dubia were made public two months later.

Still no response from Francis.

On April 25, 2017, the four Cardinals wrote a respectful letter to Francis requesting an audience in regards to the Dubia. It was hand-delivered on May 6.

Over six weeks later, no response from Francis.

Now, what I have been wondering over these past weeks (and months) is …

Why?

Why is Francis refusing to answer these five questions?

I must admit I am leaning toward the conclusion that Francis is trying to change Catholic teaching. And I fear this Communion-for-the-divorced is merely a tactic to wedge open the door to full communion and acceptance of homosexuality. I am not educated enough in the Inside-Baseball of the Vatican, Catholic theology, and the history of Papal documents to know this with any degree of certainty, of course, but in light of the question I asked a few days ago …

Is the Church converting the world, or is the world converting the Church?

I can not be persuaded that something like this is not currently being played out.

More in the next post …