The Remnant Newspaper has once again managed to give us an excellent example of pseudo-traditionalist foolishness. In their latest anti-sede article, Michael Matt writes a blasphemous introduction for a John Salza piece titled “Raymond Cardinal Burke: New Apologist for the Sedevacantists?”
His blasphemy consists in asserting that the “New Mass is a disastrous novelty”, a “devastating sacrilege”, and “Satan’s masterstroke!”
The Council of Trent anathematizes anyone who says the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety (Can. 7, sess. XXII).
Since Matt believes the Catholic Church gave us the New Mass [if it wasn’t the Catholic Church, what church was it?], he must also conclude that the Catholic Church is led by Satan in giving us a sacrilegious liturgy.
Matt argues that another one of Satan’s masterstrokes is the fact that Francis is the true pope and the root cause for the crisis in the Church. Matt’s blasphemies are as bad as anything his pope has ever said.
Matt even suggests that his pope Francis hasn’t “officially and unequivocally” denied any dogma in Amoris Laetitia. Yet, his comrade Christopher Ferrara signed the “Filial Correction concerning the propagation of heresies.”
In the same article, Salza writes about the “Correction” as perhaps not being heretical but of “lessor (sic) errors on the scale of theological censures.” I’d be surprised if the signers of the document agree, especially the co-author of his book True or False Pope, Robert Siscoe, who also signed the Correction.
Salza’s main focus in the article is on how a pope loses office. Once again, he brings up the old argument about the formal and material elements of heresy, which as been refuted over and over again. Examples: A Note to John Salza: Heresy ‘Does’ Automatically Sever One from the Church
The Sin of Heresy – Why John Salza and Robert Siscoe Get It Wrong (Part II)
Salza writes: As we explain in detail in True or False Pope?, if a Pope has not openly left the Church, or publicly admitted that he knowingly rejects what the Church definitively teaches on faith or morals (which none of the conciliar Popes have done), pertinacity would need to be established another way. The other way, according to Divine law and canon law, is by issuing an ecclesiastical warning to the suspect.
But this is just poppycock. Let’s review:
1. Francis has openly left the Church by heresy. That’s how it works.
2. There is no divine or canon law that says the pope must be issued an ecclesiastical warning to establish pertinacity. Ecclesiastical warnings concern the penal code. [1] Popes and cardinals don’t fall under the penal code and canon law is clear that it is the superior who issues warnings [as seen in the footnote]. Popes don’t fall under the penal code because…
3. The first or primatial see is subject to no ones judgment, canon 1556. The Pope has God alone as his superior.
Salza is full of nonsense.
The experts have told us specifically how a pope relinquishes his office. See Canon 188.4 and Defection of Faith – Why John Salza and Robert Siscoe Get It Wrong (Part III)
Salza concludes: “We also affirm with them that a Pope would lose his office for ‘formally professing heresy,’ only if it is according to the judgment of the Church, and certainly not according to the judgment of private individuals. This is not only the teaching of the Church and all her theologians, but common sense – a natural virtue that is often missing among those who have been so scandalized by the crisis.”
Salza still doesn’t understand what formally professing heresy means even when the Church authorities tell him. The Vatican 2 popes have consistently and repeatedly taught heresy after heresy but according to Salza, they aren’t really heretics until they are warned by cardinals who agree with those very heresies, and who have no authority to warn a Pope anyway.
In fact, Salza, Matt, etc., believe the pope can believe, teach, and promote any and every heresy under the sun and he will continue to be pope until “the church” says, “hey, we’re warning you, you’re teaching heresy” and then declares he’s not the Pope. As though the Pope were obliged to listen to what the cardinals tell him!
Sedevacantists simply understand that Francis isn’t Pope because he doesn’t have a Catholic bone in his body. I submit that the real masterstroke of Satan is the counterfeit Catholic Church and how the likes of Michael Matt and John Salza keep defending it with utter foolishness.
Footnote:
[1] “When does contumacy exist? The Code, can. 2242, §2, distinguishes between a censure ferendae and a censure latae sententia. The former requires a canonical admonition. Hence the ecclesiastical superior must, according to can. 2143, issue a formal warning…” (Rev. Augustine, A Commentary on the New Code of Law, The Penal Code, book V, p. 117)
Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell 
Interesting. I have always wanted to ask you one thing. What if, after Vatican II, they had left the Tridentine Mass alone in structure, but just translated the entire thing into English (or whatever vernacular) where a person is (Spanish, Portuguese, etc)? For example, I have attended the divine liturgy in Greek, Ukranian and English. I must say I prefer the English. It is quite easy for me to become distracted if it is not all in a language I can follow. My dad was raised pre-Vatican II and I asked him about the changes in the mass. He’s not a theologian of course, but one thing he noted was that he liked it when the mass was changed from the Latin to English, which allowed him to follow along. He’s fluent in Italian and English. Anyway, I love the Latin Mass, but again, I struggle with following along. So I was just curious your thoughts.
I far as I know, if they only changed the language there wouldn’t be any problems. But I could be wrong. There was time in history when Cyril and Methodius changed the language for the Slavs and the pope approved.
That being said, even if they didn’t change the mass at all, sedevacantism would still be true because of the heresies of Vatican 2 and the other heresies of the Vatican 2 popes.
The collapse of the R&R system under Bergoglio may be summarised as follows:
Objection: I heard him say something uncatholic.
R&R answers that: Yes, but it was off-the-cuff. It doesn’t count.
Objection: I heard him say something uncatholic in a press conference.
R&R answers that: Yes, yes, but it was on a plane. Einstein’s theory of relativity: a statement made on a moving frame of reference doesn’t count.
Objection: He wrote something uncatholic in a published letter, writing as pope.
R&R answers that: Yes, yes, yes, but it is not in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, where every vernacular Mass-going Catholic learns his doctrine. It doesn’t count.
Objection: He wrote something uncatholic in an apostolic exhortation.
R&R answers that: Yes, yes, yes, but, but it is not in an encyclical! It doesn’t count!
Objection: He wrote something uncatholic in an encyclical.
R&R answers that: Yes, yes, yes, but, but, but it is not infallible! It doesn’t count!
Objection: He canonized Roncalli and Wojtyla. That’s infallible.
R&R answers that: Yes, yes, yes, but, but, but…I, uh, heard he had his fingers crossed behind his back when he did it. It doesn’t count! And that’s Pope John XXIII and Pope John Paul II to you! Have you no respect for the office of supreme teacher?
How could one possibly attempt to evangelize based on the R&R position? If the general public knew about it they would surely laugh it to scorn.
Hi Mr. Speray, I was wondering if you could prove one of Vatican 2’s statements to be heretical. I can’t see anywhere online where anyone proves they are heretical, some people have just found statements that look like heresy and then compared them to heresies. Can you help illustrate, or re-explain that Vatican 2 is definitely heretical?
Much appreciated if so!
This entry says: “In the same article, Salza writes about the “Correction” as perhaps not being heretical but of “lessor (sic) errors on the scale of theological censures.””
The SSPX says that Vatican 2 is erroneous, but doesn’t say it is heretical: “The Errors of Vatican 2” http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2003_January/errors_of_vatican_II.htm
Fr. Cekada, reposted on NovusOrdoWatch, lays down arguments for sedevacantism that starts with: “Officially-sanctioned Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws embody errors and/or promote evil.” https://novusordowatch.org/2017/08/sedevacantism-cekada-answers-chazal/
But it assumes the heresies as a given. Can it be proven that there are statements which are certainly heretical?
Here is also a list of theological censures: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03532a.htm
On that list it mentions “(2) Ambigua (ambiguous) … A proposition is ambiguous when it is worded so as to present two or more senses, one of which is objectionable”
Could it be the Vatican 2 teachings are simply ambiguous and not heretical, and therefore some lessor (sic 🙂 ) error than heresy?
It also mentions “hæresi proxima (next to heresy) … Even though a statement be not obviously a heresy or an error it may yet come near to either. It is styled next, proximate to heresy when its opposition to a revealed and defined dogma is not certain, or chiefly when the truth it contradicts, though commonly accepted as revealed, has yet never been the object of a definition (proxima fidei).”
Again, is it possible Vatican 2 teachings are next to heresy (hæresi proxima) rather than actually heretical?
Also, do you know how the censures are applied? Like, does an authority need to apply certain censures, and not others?
Again thank you for any insights you may have!
There are definite heresies in Vatican 2. I’ll give you 5 examples and I could easily give several more…
1. “The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person… This right to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right.” found in DH p.2.
Pope Pius IX condemned this as contradicting Divine Revelation in Quanta Cura and Pope Pius VII condemned it as heretical in Post Tam Diuturnas.
2. “Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this is followed from Holy Scripture.” from NA p. 4,
Condemned by Scripture in Matthew 21:33-45 and 27:25 as interpreted by the Church.
3. “The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these [non-Christian] religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men.” from NA p.2,
No explanation necessary since doctrines that differ from the Church’s do not reflect truth.
4. “Finally, He brought His revelation to completion when He accomplished on the Cross the work of redemption by which He achieved salvation and true freedom for men.” found in DH, p. 11.
Contradicts the Council of Trent which taught, “Jesus Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance when He said, “Receive the Holy Ghost; whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain they are retained.” This is found in John 20:23 after the Crucifixion.
5. “In certain circumstances, such as in prayer services ‘for unity’ and during oecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable, that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren. Such prayers in common are certainly a very effective means of petitioning for the grace of unity, and they are a genuine expression of the ties which still bind Catholics to their separated brethren.” from UR, p. 8.
There’s nothing ambiguous about these. The last one on worship with non-Catholics goes on and on in Vatican 2 which clarifies what it means and it’s all completely heretical and condemned so many times throughout Church history.
Re point 1: the contradiction of Quanta Cura was raised in your earlier post on Angelo Roncalli, to which I added the comment that the Catholic Encyclopedia describes this Encyclical as one of the “final decisions of the infallible teaching authority of the Church”.
The religious liberty heresy is, in my view, of the essence of Modernism. Modernists believe that Catholicism’s claim to be a divinely revealed religion failed the modern test of scientific demonstrability. They believe, therefore, that all religions are equal because none is objectively true – all are equally subjective.
According to the R&R system, it is possible for a Modernist to occupy the papacy. If this were the case, this would obstruct Catholics from demonstrating, in the name of the Church, that Catholicism is objectively true. In other words, it would prevent them from carrying out the divine command to teach all nations.
We, of course, know that it is not possible for a Modernist to occupy the papacy. I think the time has come for us to assert this fact in secular fora – to go into the highways and hedges, as it were, and bypass the R&R discussion, which, I believe, is paralyzing Catholic evangelization.
On the subject of Dignitatis Humanae #2 (“DH”) one can see its contradiction of Quanta Cura (“QC”) quite clearly as follows:
1) QC condemns the “erroneous opinion” that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right”. It condemns this opinion both outright in itself and as being derived from another “totally false idea” of social government. The “false idea” is that:
“[T]hat is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.”
Note that the proviso beginning “except so far as”, highlighted above, is condemned equally with the rest of the “false idea”. That is, Pope Pius IX was not prepared to accept the proposition even with this proviso;
2) The above proviso, being part of the “false idea”, must also be part of the “erroneous opinion” on “liberty of conscience” because the Pope describes the erroneous opinion as being derived from the false idea. This is so because it is not possible to validly draw a conclusion that is greater in scope than the premises from which it is deduced. Thus, if we append the proviso to the erroneous opinion, we find that the Pope condemns the following proposition, that:
“liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way” – except so far as public peace may require;
3) Now look at DH:
“This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits…. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right…. [T]he exercise of this right [to immunity from external coercion] is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.”
Clearly, DH contradicts Pius IX’s infallible condemnation in QC. The proviso to DH, which I have highlighted in two places in bold above, makes no difference, because the proviso was itself part of the false idea condemned by the Pope as being “against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers”!
I have a two part question here, not sure if you’d be willing to answer both:
First:
I wonder your thoughts on who have been declared “doctors of the church” since 1959? Are you suspect of these or do you recognize the individual’s contribution to the faith but won’t go as far to say they are a doctor of the church? I say this because I’ve heard more than once that Benedict XVI will be declared a doctor of the church. On January 16, 1946, Pius XII declared St. Anthony of Padua 1195 – 1231 a doctor of the church. After that we have the following:
St. Lawrence of Brindisi 1559 – 1619 (March 19, 1959 by John XXIII)
St. Catherine of Siena 1347 – 1380 (October 4, 1970 by Paul VI)
St. Teresa of Avila 1515 – 1582 (September 27, 1970 by Paul VI)
St. Therese of Lisieux 1873 – 1897 (October 19, 1997 by John Paul II)
St. John of Avila 1500 – 1569 (October 7, 2012 by Pope Benedict XVI)
St. Hildegard of Bingen 1098 – 1179 (October 7, 2012 by Pope Benedict XVI)
St. Gregory of Narek 951 – 1003 (February 21, 2015 by Pope Francis)
However, all of these Saints come from an important period in the church, don’t they? I know many people venerate the lives of St. Teresa of Avila and St. Therese of Lisieux. You quote St. Teresa of Avila in your article on The Fewness of the Saved – Most People Go to Hell. I am not saying one can’t quote it or by merely quoting it they are making a pronouncement as to whether one is a doctor or not. However, should we not consider their work or theology as that of a “doctor of the church” a long the lines of St. Robert Bellarmine 1542 – 1621, who was declared a Doctor of the church on September 17, 1931 by Pius XI?
Second:
Also I was curious your thoughts on St. Maria Faustina Kowalska, who wrote the Divine Mercy and was beatified in 1993 and canonized in 2000 by JPII. Is she not a saint then or even beatified? I am reading it now and she was one who clearly lived and experienced Catholicism before Vatican II. Have you ever read this work?
She warning her fellow nuns a great war was coming, died in 1938 and WWII started in 1939. When Germany invaded Poland Archbishop Jałbrzykowski of Vilnius allowed for public use of the Divine Mercy devotion for the first time because of her prophecy. The devotion quickly spread and by 1941 it was spreading around the world and eventually to the U.S. A Polish priest started a religious congregation related to the devotion and by by 1951, there were religious centers in Poland dedicated to Divine Mercy.
In 1955, a Polish bishop, with the approval of Pope Pius XII, started a religious congregation dedicated to spreading the devotion. Pope Pius XII blessed a Divine Mercy image in 1956 and allowed many bishops throughout the world to give their blessing to writings about the devotion. Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, the head of the Holy Office tried to persuade Pope Pius XII to sign a condemnation of St. Faustina’s works, but was rebuffed. When John XXIII was elected Pope in 1958, Cardinal Ottaviani included her works on a list of books to consider banning. In 1959, the Holy Office finally issued a document that forbade the use of “images and writings that promote devotion to Divine Mercy in the forms proposed by Sister Faustina.”
So you have an issue here of Pius XII blessed the Divine Mercy image, but then John XXIII condemned it at the urging of Ottaviani.
Then, Wojtyła became Archbishop of Kraków in 1964 and he started a fresh investigation into her work and it was determined the previous condemnation of St. Faustina’s works had been mostly a result of those at the Vatican reading her works not in their original Polish but via faulty French and Italian translations. In 1978 the Vatican reversed its ban, JPII beatified her in 1993 and canonized her in 2000.
So which way do you go on this issue? Do you stop with Pius XII and say her work is blessed and leave it at that? Was Ottaviani right in condemning or does the condemnation not stand because you’d argue an invalid Pope approved the condemnation? What about the beatification and canonization?
1. If an antipope declares some saint as Doctor of the Church, I won’t accept it. That doesn’t mean these saints aren’t right or something. Only a true pope can declare someone Doctor of the Church. The ones you listed are pretty awesome, though. You should read them.
2. I’ve read Faustina’s Diary. I think it was suppressed in the 1950’s. I would need to look further into it.
I suggest you read The Way of Divine Love by Sr. Josepha Menendez written in the 1920’s. It’s really something!
I did some more research and it looks like Pius XII also condemned her work. I am only in my infancy of reading this work. However, yesterday I was looking at a life size photo of this at a church and something didn’t sit right. I will finish reading the work, but early on many things in it have caused me to stop and question it.
Hello, responding to comment from above (can’t respond to the chain for some reason?)
SS: “There’s nothing ambiguous about these. The last one on worship with non-Catholics goes on and on in Vatican 2 which clarifies what it means and it’s all completely heretical and condemned so many times throughout Church history.”
Two, maybe a few more problems here. First, I don’t think these are unambiguous statements, and then I don’t think they are proven to be heretical. Stay with me here: I am totally against the V2 church and pro-sede, but I do not believe the sede case is proven, and I would like to pick it apart until it stands clear.
You say the statements are “nothing ambiguous”; though, in fact that is what they are: the modernists are making use of ambiguity to push heresy in my view. This makes it difficult to pin them down as being definitely heretical; the theological censure would be “ambigua” for being ambiguous I think, but I believe there is not currently any proof of heresy beyond that.
Examples of The Method of Ambiguity Being Used
I know you had a pro-Trump post, consider what Trump said while campaigning, making use of ambiguity in a different way: “maybe those 2nd Amendment people can do something about it” – I think this was about protecting gun rights. The statement was ambiguous and liberals latched on and claimed that Trump was saying that gun owners could violently protect the 2nd Amendment. To me I think Trump was clearly insinuating that, but obviously not promoting that: they stated that what he “really meant” was that the 2nd Amendment supporters could peacefully lobby to protect gun laws. I do believe genuinely this was the intended meaning of the phrase, but it was intentionally sprinkled with the suggestion of the alternative meaning.
Likewise, “pope” Francis said: “If someone is gay, who am I to judge?” a while back. I believe the clear message he was trying to communicate was that homosexual sins are “not so bad” or “not sinful”, but this ambiguous statement could also be correctly interpreted in the “light of Tradition” that no one judges a soul to heaven or hell but God. And in fact I’m sure the “New Vatican” came out with some kind of claim like that after the fact, much in the reverse of the Trump example above.
And so likewise I do not believe the allegedly heretical ambiguous V2 statements are clearly heretical, or I believe more discussion is required to establish that. There are many non-sedes that do not hold the V2 statements to be heretical; I do believe sedes need to ask more V2 people why they think V2 statements aren’t heretical, because they may bring up points sedes have not considered or addressed yet (which has been my experience when trying to show V2 churchgoers the “obvious heresies” of Vatican 2 – they came back with questions I did not immediately have answers to, and it did not seem obvious and clear that the “heresies” were heresies).
Attempt At Counter-Argument That Alleged Sedevacantist V2 “Heresies” Are Not Heretical
Here I will try to debunk that the alleged “heresies” are heretical.
(Again, keep in mind I am no V2 supporter, but I also do not immediately agree with what I keep seeing sedes claim are “proofs” when they to me look like possibly good arguments, but I don’t think they are “proofs” strictly speaking, or I would like them to look more solid, better. Think about it – if this is really proven, like 2+2=4, you would expect more people would accept it. Therefore I conclude it is either not proven, which I think is the case, or it could be more clearly presented so people could more easily understand it. I believe the sede case is in need of strengthening. The other major issue is I concede many of these things may be “errors”, but that the bar of heresy may not be met.)
1. With “religious freedom”, that is also an ambiguous phrase; while the Church has taught that the Church may lawfully unite with the State to promote faith and morals, Catholicism also teaches that “a conscience that is in invincible error must be followed when it forbids or commands, but he who follows an erroneous conscience is guilty if his ignorance is vincible”. http://www.betrayedcatholics.com/free-content/3-for-beginners/the-importance-of-conscience-formation/ Could this text simply be read “in the light of Tradition” to mean that such a person has the “religious freedom” morally to follow their conscience, even if it is wrong? With the crucial omission that the V2 church fails to say that Catholics ought to form their consciences (and therefore to avoid non-Catholic beliefs!)?
2. For example, with the Jewish quote above: perhaps the word “Jewish” is ambiguous, and the V2 text can be read to mean that there is no curse on ethnic (rather than religious) Jews. Wasn’t the curse simply on the Judaism that didn’t become Christian? And again, is this a heresy even if it was contradicting Catholic teaching, or a lessor [sic] error?
3. The quote is definitely confusing, but it itself does say that the Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true (therefore it is not affirming anything that is false or heretical). And the second sentence is easier to read “in the light of tradition” by removing the middle comma clause: “She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct … [that] nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men.” This is basically saying that anything that reflects a ray of truth, the Church respects. I think this language is very sloppy, but not clearly heretical, and only possibly erroneous by being ambiguous.
4. Again, this phrase is simply ambiguous, I don’t think it clearly contradicts Trent. It is clearly omissive as it suggests of the idea of “universal salvation” that by Jesus dying, He has saved mankind automatically. But it this sentence was right next to another sentence that said, “…provided that Christians do all that is necessary for salvation”, sedes would not typically try to consider this statement as heretical. It is true that by Jesus dying, he accomplished the work of redemption and the capacity for many or all to be saved though, correct? Basically, this statement is ambiguous: “He achieved salvation and true freedom for men”. Which men? This statement is true if it means “He achieved salvation and true freedom for men … the men who do all that is necessary for salvation otherwise”. So, again, I believe the statement can be read “through the light of Tradition”, or that there may be other counter-arguments and attempts to interpret the passages that sedes would need to address.
5. All the Vatican 2 statements in question often start with these ambiguous legalistic phrases, like for example in this one, “In certain circumstances”. So the statement here clearly suggests of saying Catholics should pray with non-Catholics in “certain circumstances” when they definitely should not – I do believe this is the clear message the modernists are pushing. But they can also claim that this statement therefore strictly means “in the light of Tradition” that the only “certain circumstances” Catholics can pray with non-Catholics, might be like when a non-Catholic comes to a church and is in the process of conversion, for example. Therefore, again, I believe the statement could be read “in the light of Tradition”.
I have tried to do this for most, if not all of the alleged Vatican 2 heresies and have made up some interpretation “in the light of Tradition” that may or may not fit. You could try to do this yourself. Take every “heresy” the sedes claim is heretical and try to argue for why it is able to be understood as Catholic. Then see if anything sticks.
Now, here’s another suggestion: Vatican 2 may not be heretical, but this isn’t essential to the sedevacantist case. It may be simply that Roncalli’s pre-election statements were heretical, and therefore if Roncalli was not a true pope, then Vatican 2 is not a Catholic Council in the first place, so we don’t even have to look at what Vatican 2 teaches. You follow? It seems possible to me that there may actually be no Catholic answer about if muslims worship God or not since this issue was not dealt with in Catholic history – therefore this may be a problem that is unresolvable and therefore would simply make Catholics think and debate on this endlessly with no end in sight. I hypothesize this may be a “dead end of quicksand” to keep us stuck. Possibly even Roncalli’s allegedly “heretical” pre-election statements are like this as well.
Sensus Catholicus and Hard Proof
Currently my view is firstly, 1) many sedes are simply sedevacantist because they believe (correctly) the V2 church contradicts the “sensus Catholicus”. Your most recent post is a great example of this: the SSPX claiming that the novus ordo is a “bastard mass”, and that this comes under an anathema, that no one can say that truly Catholic masses are some kind of “bastard” or invitation to impiety. So the SSPX is either calling a Catholic mass a bastard mass (contradiction), or it must accept the “mass” (seems to conflict with “sensus Catholicus”) or must therefore conclude Paul VI was not pope and become sedevacantist (seems implied necessarily logically but not strictly proven).
So this is a clear contradiction of the “sensus Catholicus”; however in itself I don’t think it proves sedevacantism, but it almost does, because it would seem absurd for a traditional Catholic who reads the Baltimore Catechism (which talks about the wisdom of the Church keeping its mass in latin as if this was never going to change) then accepting that the mass is no longer in latin when the catechism basically talks as though this was going to stay like this indefinitely. Yet, again, strictly speaking, the pope has the right to change the missal I believe – hence, there is no “hard argument” here for sedevacantism, but these “arguments of conflict with the sensus Catholicus” certainly are of value and I think point to that a 2) “hard argument” will be proven and is to be sought. And so here you do offer a “hard argument” that there are 5 exact V2 alleged heresies, and I personally do not believe the current “hard arguments” of the sedes stand (although I do believe we will be able to iron out one in the future) – there are disagreements about what the fundamental “hard argument” is (Paul VI’s new mass is heretical? Paul VI’s V2 documents are heretical? Roncall’s pre-election statements are heretical? Or will it be something else? I think possibly it will be something else, or maybe the Roncalli statements proven as heretical). The “new mass” I do not believe is clearly heretical and a #2 “hard” argument for sedevacantism; the n.m. is ambiguous, and therefore since Paul Vi would otherwise be considered a true pope, it would be presumed that the n.m. is Catholic. Yet this does seem like a clear #1 sensus Catholicus contradiction argument.
So anyway, to me currently the status of sedevacantism revolves around maybe organizing the #1 “sensus Catholicus contradictions” as arguments, but then about strengthening the #2 “hard arguments” for sedevacantism. I believe that many people have simply ignored sede “hard arguments”, therefore there hasn’t been much critique of them, and sedes just accept them with less critical examination, therefore this is why the “hard arguments” are as they are right now: I believe they are unproven basically, since there are no sedes who are questioning them. For me the clear point of contradiction here with the claims of sedes is: A. they claim that sedevacantism is proven based on alleged heresies existing and yet B. this is not self-evident to most people, even people like sedeplenists who have looked at the V2 documents or a lot of people worldwide who have studied the texts.
I therefore again conclude as above that i. either the V2 heresies are not heretical and critical discussion will establish this, or ii. critical discussion can clean up the “proof” of V2 being heretical, and therefore this, if truly proven, would become accepted in a widespread fashion (especially by, for example, non-sedevacantist traditionalists).
Therefore I am requesting this critical analysis of the V2 statements and attempt to disprove them as heretical, and/or “really really” show that they are heretical, as this is not self-evident or clear to me when I look at them.
In closing: pretend I am an adolescent – you say, “this is the V2 statement, it contradicts this statement.” I say, “no way, it doesn’t for this [make up a reason] reason!” (and we may be able to go back and forth like this a few times) I believe there are many “adolescent” questions to be had with this material still until it is up to the quality where no rebellious or obedient adolescent can question it, and it is not at that level of “proof” currently.
Hope this was of some use!
I think I understand, and share, your goal here. In my comments above I have attempted to keep things simple by focusing on one alleged heresy, namely, DH #2.
In your comment you imply that DH #2 can be reconciled with Quanta Cura (“QC”) by appealing to the Church’s teaching on invincible ignorance. I submit, rather, that DH #2 is heretical merely because it logically contradicts the wording of Quanta Cura, just as the statement “I do not believe in the Holy Spirit” contradicts the Eighth Article of the Creed.
As I write above, QC condemns the opinion that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right” as “erroneous”. DH #2, on the other hand, asserts as true that “the human person has a right to religious freedom”.
I believe that the latter statement logically contradicts the former, infallible statement. It is a false statement. That is all there is to it. Mine not to reason why Pius IX wrote what he wrote (as a matter of pure authority). Mine but to follow the logic.
I can no more appeal to the teaching on invincible ignorance in this case than I can make “2 + 2 = 5” true by subtracting 1 from the right hand side of the equation. “2 + 2 = 5 – 1” is true, but it is a different statement from “2 + 2 = 5”, which remains false, and should not be taught in schools.
I understand that some things are ambiguous in Vatican2. I don’t think there is ambiguity in the points I brought up. They do prove sedevacantism.
1. The religious liberty quote I’m referring to isn’t addressed. Clearly heretical.
2. The context tells us what Vat2 means.
3. Of course, it rejects nothing what it true, but it also doesn’t reject some things that are not true, too. That’s the point.
4. The point was missed. It’s about the when, not the who.
5. Even in the circumstances it refers is wrong.
However, I do appreciate the thoughts.
Thanks for the feedback to you both – I’ll just end here and encourage more discussion on this, I think this is where sedevacantism is stalled. Even if these are proven, most people do not understand they are.
And also for example recently I was reading “Read it or Rue it” by one of the priests in the 30s, about Purgatory. In it he stated that souls when they die go to purgatory. In context, we know he meant that souls in the right state go to purgatory when they die – not that ALL souls go there. There was a 1992 footnote that clarifies this in a reprinting. But sedes might have to consider the original tract heretical in itself (?) otherwise, even though the rest of the work is orthodox and we know what Fr. meant there – and the censors also missed this.
So I think more discussion has to be had to nail these heresies down and create a widespread acceptance they’ve been nailed down. A lot of people will just say, “well, we know what they meant in context, it was just error, not heresy, just like Fr. in ‘Read it or Rue it”, and so on. Also they might bring up other arguments, which I’ve had when talking with V2 people which haven’t been discussed much against sedes.
I look forward to a somewhat bright future when we get this all sorted out and there’s more widespread agreement and I pray for this!
I understand the desire, even the need, to close a thread. Because of the critical importance of this issue, and for the sake of other readers who may be struggling with it, I would like to close by addressing three logical fallacies that I perceive in your comment.
1) Red herring.
As the Catholic Encyclopedia writes, “In itself no opposition is so sharply determined as by the contradictory: it is simply the negation of the foregoing statement” (from the article entitled “Syllabus”, with emphasis added). Thus it is not necessary to survey the Catholic literature for other statements that may suffer from ambiguity or some other difficulty of interpretation. This would be a red herring, because a flat logical contradiction may be recognized on its own terms.
The Encyclopedia further writes, “This opposition is formulated, in accordance with the rules of dialectics, by prefixing to each proposition the words: ‘It is not true that…'”. If one applies this prefix to the opinion condemned in QC, the condemnation reads as follows:
“It is not true that liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right”.
Again, DH #2 asserts that “the human person has a right to religious freedom”.
As a matter of logic, one can see that DH #2 removes the negation. It cannot get any clearer than that. If such a contradiction appears in any text that bears an imprimatur, then, yes, I submit that all knowledgeable Catholics would reject it also.
2) Appeal to majority opinion.
This fallacy should be clear. If acceptance by the majority of mankind were a necessary prerequisite for proof, then the Catholic Church itself would, to this day, not merit belief.
3) Fallacy of academic detachment.
This is the fallacy of proposing that if arguments may be found on either side of a debate, then the only conclusion that may validly be drawn is that one is unable to decide one way or the other. The fallacy consists in the fact that failing to act may favor one side over the other as much as acting does.
Consider, for example, the legal formula, “beyond all reasonable doubt”. The key word, I submit, is not “doubt” but “reasonable”. If juries were allowed to entertain any doubt whatsoever, then no convictions could be obtained, and criminal justice would grind to a halt.