One of the main arguments made by pseudo-traditional Catholics is that the heretical novus ordo mass, Second Vatican Council, etc. did not fall under the realm of infallibility. Therefore, the Church [that gave us these things] is not actually heretical. They can resist these abominations and remain in the same church because they weren’t imposed or binding. The Church is still holy.
If we follow this logic, then Protestantism is holy and not actually heretical because Protestants don’t even claim infallibility.
The absurdity is glaring. The Catholic Church can’t teach heresy in any capacity. If it could, it would be essentially no different than the Protestant/Eastern Orthodox religions.
Some Protestants pray the Creed each week saying they believe in “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church,” but their meaning of those words differs from the Catholic Church’s understanding. Vatican 2’s definition is closer to the Protestant understanding. The only difference is that it declared “the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic…subsists in the Catholic Church” which alone has “the fullness of grace and truth.” The Protestant and Eastern Orthodox religions don’t have the fullness thereof. According to Vatican 2, the “Church of Christ” which includes Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox is “one” even though formally divided. [1]
In principle, the pseudo-Traditional Catholic understanding is exactly like the Protestant/Vatican 2 understanding.
Although the “pope” (and most every bishop and priest) believes, promotes, and defends religious liberty, communicatio in sacris with non-Catholics, novus ordo mass, etc., the pseudo-traditionalists who vehemently oppose such things still believe they are one in faith with their pope and his faithful clergy. For them, formal division in dogma and divine law is canceled out because of their union with their pope or church. For Protestants, it’s canceled out because of their so-called union with Christ. For Vatican 2, it’s canceled out because of baptism.
The absurdity continues with the mark of holiness. For pseudo-traditionalists, heresy and abomination is canceled out because infallibility wasn’t used. For Protestants, it’s canceled out because sola scriptura is foundational. For Vatican 2, it’s canceled out because of the human condition which is fallen.
Whatever argument that’s employed by pseudo-traditionalists against sedevacantism, it always comes down to this: They want you to believe in the absurdity that oneness and holiness of the Church includes formal division, heresy, and abomination just like Protestantism and the teaching of Vatican 2.
Footnote:
[1] In an interview with the German newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine, Ratzinger, aka Benedict XVI, stated:
“When the Council Fathers replace the word ‘is,’ used by Pius XII, with the word ‘subsistit,’ they did so for a very precise reason. The concept expressed by ‘is’ (to be) is far broader than that expressed by ‘to subsist.’ ‘To subsist’ is a very precise way of being, that is, to be as a subject, which exists in itself. Thus the Council Fathers meant to say: the being of the Church as such extends much further than the Roman Catholic Church, but within the latter it acquires, in an incomparable way, the character of a true and proper subject.”
Avery Cardinal Dulles, a member of the International Theological Commission: “The Church of Christ is not exclusively identical to the Roman Catholic Church. It does indeed subsist in Roman Catholicism but it is also present in varying modes and degrees in other Christian communities.” (Toward the Church of the Third Millennium: Verso la Chiesa del Terzo Millennio, Brescia: Queriniana, 1979)
Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx, one of the main drafters of Vatican II documents, stated: “It is difficult to say that the Catholic Church is still one, Catholic, apostolic, when one says that the others (other Christian communities) are equally one, Catholic and apostolic, albeit to a lesser degree. —- at Vatican Council II, the Roman Catholic Church officially abandoned its monopoly over the Christian religion.”
To the contrary, Pope Pius XII repeatedly taught that “the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.” (Mystici Corporis Christi, 1943, Humani Generis, #27, 1950.)
And those who do not even follow the warped mindset of pseudo Traditionalists are so far removed from Catholic Truth that in reality they are non-catholic. Their shepherd priests and bishops are more like pied pipers leading all to the sea.
To top all, most novus ordo catholics including the questionable priests and bishops don’t know their faith or even care to know because it intrudes on their comfort zone of complacency. They fail to understand that they must profess the entire Catholic Faith without exception. They fail to understand that they are totally subject to their pontiff whether they like it or not. They fail to practice the Faith as set forth within Tradition and teachings of the Church. They fail to accept they it takes more to being Catholic than simply stating one is. Since it is
now articulated that the novus ordo catholic church is just another religion on par with all the others, it is easy to see why it has become so shallow and lacking.
Cummunicatio in sacris is only used twice in Unitatis redintegratio and in one of those usages, it relates to the Eastern Churches and notes what was always known, these churches possess true sacraments, apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist. We know this from history which predates Vatican II and the return of the Eastern Churches at the Union of Brest. Cumminicatio in sacris should be looked at as it is used according to Orientalium Ecclesiarium, because there is a fine point distinction when dealing with Eastern Rite Catholics and the return of Eastern Orthodox into communion with Rome (who are thus commanded to retain their eastern practices as I’ll cite below.) In the Union of Brest (1595) there are a few points in there that I want to mention from the treaty:
15. If in the future someone of our Religion should want to join the Roman Church, denying his own Religion and Ceremonies, let him not be accepted, since he is degrading the Ceremonies of the one Church of God, since, being already in one Church, we shall have one Pope.
This refers to Eastern Orthodox return to Rome. They should not abandon their Eastern Tradition. This is due to the fact Rome and the East agreed at the union that the eastern and latin rights, in communion, were one church. Therefore, the Eastern Orthodox did not have to become Latin Rite to come into the church.
16. That marriages may freely take place between the Roman faithful and the Rus’ faithful, without any compulsion as to Religion, for both are already one Church.
Again, it is one church, two traditions, one church.
31. And when the Lord God by His will and holy grace shall permit the rest of our brothers of the Eastern Church of the Greek tradition to come to the holy unity with the Western Church, and later in this common union and by the permission of the Universal Church there should be any change in the ceremonies and Typicon of the Greek Church, we shall share all this as people of the same religion.
A union of the two would make one religion; one religion of their distinct traditions and practices.
Pope Benedict XIV On December 24, 1743, in the Constitution Demandatam, prevented the Latinization of the Meliktes and forbade Latin Rite clergy to induce Melkite Catholics to transfer to the Latin rite. Then Pope Leo XIII extended this prohibition to cover ALL Eastern Catholics.
On November 30, 1894, Pope Leo XIII issued the apostolic constitution Orientalium Dignitas and opened the letter with this:
“The Churches of the East are worthy of the glory and reverence that they hold throughout the whole of Christendom in virtue of those extremely ancient, singular memorials that they have bequeathed to us. For it was in that part of the world that the first actions for the redemption of the human race began, in accord with the all-kind plan of God. They swiftly gave forth their yield: there flowered in first blush the glories of preaching the True Faith to the nations, of martyrdom, and of holiness. They gave us the first joys of the fruits of salvation. From them has come a wondrously grand and powerful flood of benefits upon the other peoples of the world, no matter how far-flung. When blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, intended to cast down the manifold wickedness of error and vice, in accord with the will of Heaven, he brought the light of divine Truth, the Gospel of peace, freedom in Christ to the metropolis of the Gentiles.”
Pope Leo XIII later declared, “It is Our will and decree that the aforesaid decree of Benedict XIV originally promulgated respecting the Greek Melkites, now apply globally to all the faithful of any Eastern rite whatever.”
Therefore, the return of any Eastern church (Eastern Orthodox) is to retain its liturgy, practice and traditions.
Leading up to the time of Vatican II, the Catholic Church did not possess one rite only as there were 23 (sui iuris) Eastern Catholic churches that comprised the entire Catholic Church.
In the words of Pope Leo XIII and Pope Benedict XIV, the Eastern Rite Catholics (and thus any Eastern Orthodox who come into communion with Rome) were to retain their liturgies, customs and practices. So in relation to communicatio in sacris, what was related to the Eastern Churches in Orientalium Ecclesiarium was that, “Common participation in worship (communicatio in sacris) which harms the unity of the Church or involves formal acceptance of error or the danger of aberration in the faith, of scandal and indifferentism, is forbidden by divine law.” It is no secret that the Eastern Rite Catholics and Eastern Orthodox share the same liturgy, have the same customs and things that were once celebrated by those who when they were Eastern Orthodox retained their practices when they returned to communion. We retain them because this is what the Eastern Catholics asked for and what the Popes demanded. So in talking with Eastern Orthodox, this is what we can point to as this is often a point of concern for them. What is harmful, (or schismatic) is not left for “religious liberty” but is forbidden. We do not encourage the Eastern Orthodox to remain schismatic out of “religious liberty.”
I just want to make two final points regarding your statement, “Although the “pope” (and most every bishop and priest) believes, promotes, and defends religious liberty, communicatio in sacris with non-Catholics, novus ordo mass, etc., the pseudo-traditionalists who vehemently oppose such things still believe they are one in faith with their pope and his faithful clergy.
First, if innovations are brought to us in the Eastern Rite, which debases or tries to change our traditions or convert us to the “Novus Ordo” in any fashion, we have the permission to oppose and we can oppose. Pope Leo XIII declared, “Any Latin rite missionary, whether of the secular or religious clergy, who induces with his advice or assistance any Eastern rite faithful to transfer to the Latin rite, will be deposed and excluded from his benefice in addition to the ipso facto suspension a divinis and other punishments that he will incur as imposed in the aforesaid Constitution Demandatam. That this decree stand fixed and lasting We order a copy of it be posted openly in the churches of the Latin rite.”
So if the Latin Rite is the Novus Ordo, we do not have to accept it by converting to it and they cannot require us to convert to it. If the Latin Rite is the Sedevacantist/Traditional Catholic Church, we still retain our Rite, Customs, Practices and whatever else belongs to the east. You cannot force an Eastern Rite Catholic to convert to whatever the Latin Rite is, be it the Traditionalist or the Novus Ordo. We retain our rite either way. This was not undone by Orientalium Ecclesiarum or any other Vatican II document or decree.
The Novus Ordo cannot bring their innovations to the East and if they attempt to, they are deposed and we, by right, can reject it. We don’t have the same issue of “rejection” I suppose “pseudo-traditionalists” have when they refuse to follow Pope Francis. The Vatican II changes happened to the Western Rite.
Second, there has always been a call for the Eastern Orthodox to come into communion and not to continue practicing “religious liberty.” The call for the Eastern Orthodox to come home to communion with Rome far preceded Vatican II. I think there is a narrow scope in the relation between Eastern Rite Catholics and Eastern Orthodox and it is to the Eastern Rite to handle this relationship in the proper manner.
The issue is not about the rite but doctrine. The East must always fall inline with Rome in doctrine. The Vatican 2 changes on religious liberty, for example, was not meant for the West alone. It’s was declaring a “RIGHT” that all must accept East and West. However, it’s heretical, so if the East recognize the heresy and remain in union with Rome, then the absurdities I’m talking about apply to the East as well.
In other words, an Eastern Rite Catholic in union with Francis suffers from the same consequences. Oneness refers to the same Faith, not the same rite within the Faith. Holiness refers to all of it. You can’t have the true Church holy only in the East but not the West and vice-versa. It all must be holy!
The Novus Ordo is not Catholic at all and neither is the Eastern Orthodox. Both are heretical!
The issue is not about the rite but doctrine. The East must always fall inline with Rome in doctrine. The Vatican 2 changes on religious liberty, for example, was not meant for the West alone. It’s was declaring a “RIGHT” that all must accept East and West. However, it’s heretical, so if the East recognize the heresy and remain in union with Rome, then the absurdities I’m talking about apply to the East as well.
In other words, an Eastern Rite Catholic in union with Francis suffers from the same consequences. Oneness refers to the same Faith, not the same rite within the Faith. Holiness refers to all of it. You can’t have the true Church holy only in the East but not the West and vice-versa. It all must be holy!
The Novus Ordo is not Catholic at all and neither is the Eastern Orthodox. Both are heretical!
Steven writes, “The Catholic Church can’t teach heresy in any capacity”. How is this accomplished?
Some R&Rs appear to believe that the indefectibility of the Church is guaranteed by a divine thunderbolt, at least when she attempts to speak infallibly. Such a thunderbolt was presumably expected to prevent the canonization of Karol Wojtyla, as it was once thought to be ‘per impossibile’. History, however, has taught us differently, just as it once taught us that there would be no divine thunderbolt to protect the innocent party in a trial by combat.
So how is indefectibility secured? Well, what do the sources say? The Catholic Encyclopedia writes, “The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope” (from the article on “Heresy”; emphasis added). How, then, does the pope become a notorious, or public, heretic? Again, according to the Encyclopedia, this would happen, “were he publicly and officially to teach some doctrine clearly opposed to what has been defined as de fide catholica” (from the article on “Infallibility”).
Thus the (head of the) Church, as Steven writes, “can’t teach heresy in any capacity”, as any “public and official teaching”, not necessarily ex cathedra, automatically bars him from office.
This technical bar may dissatisfy fans of the spectacular. Perhaps they would have preferred if Our Lord had thrown Himself from the parapet of the Temple rather than (presumably) accomplishing His descent by mere human means?
What, however, is the consequence of effectively demanding that indefectibility be guaranteed by a divine thunderbolt? Apparently it is that popes can now teach heresy – as long as they date from before Vatican II! Thus stand accused John XXII, Liberius, Honorius and even the Rock himself. Post-Vatican II popes, meanwhile, will never be shown to teach heresy, not because they are barred from office, but because they are barred from teaching!
Baltimore 4: *131 Q. How is the Church catholic or universal? A. The Church is catholic or universal because it subsists in all ages, teaches all nations, and maintains all truth. “Subsists” means to have existence.
Again I think the phrase used in Lumen Gentium is ambiguous and can be read “in the light of tradition” as most (all?) of these alleged “heresies” can be: “the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic…exists (subsists) in the Catholic Church” … and I also believe they are clearly, like in the footnotes, latching on to this ambiguity and continuing with the cloak of ambiguity as much as they can while pushing a heretical interpretation, which the footnote comments do:
“Thus the Council Fathers meant to say: the being of the Church as such extends much further than the Roman Catholic Church” … perhaps in the light of tradition, this means it extends to the eastern Catholic Church (like Byzantines) as well?
Fr. Schillebeeckx: “It is difficult to say…” – these are weasel words that would allow the whole statement to evade being heretical, although a quick follow up could show that it is not difficult to say.
To me proving the heresy is the main issue, then yes all these other defenses are fluff basically because sedevacantism would be implied: some sedeplenists have argued for example that since the V2 “popes” have been accepted with practical unanimous acceptance, they became popes. Though then we run in to a contradiction, if the heresy is proven to have existed first, of heretics being accepted with practical unanimity and yet heretics cannot become pope – do they become popes then? No, they wouldn’t. So I argue, boost up the proofs of heresy in painstaking detail. I already gave in this comment the kind of push-back that would exist, if I wasn’t creating it, about calling into dispute the “obviousness” of there “heresy” of V2. I encourage you to do likewise and hopefully we can prove a heresy and it can be accepted far and wide, proving sedevacantism as true.
I think it is pretty clear that sedevacantism is possible (yet some sedeplenists I think incorrectly dispute this, like the topic of this post): but I think the foundations of the proof of heresy need strengthening.
The Baltimore Catechism correctly uses subsists when referring how the Church exists. “Subsists” in Vatican 2 is heretical because the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church, it doesn’t subsist in it. It’s one and the same thing. To use subsists in the Vat2 teaching necessarily implies that it’s two different things.
To answer your question: “Thus the Council Fathers meant to say: the being of the Church as such extends much further than the Roman Catholic Church” … perhaps in the light of tradition, this means it extends to the eastern Catholic Church (like Byzantines) as well? No, that’s not what they were saying because it’s already understood that the Eastern Catholic Churches are part of the one Catholic Church. Again, Schillebeeckx makes it clear that it’s referring to non-Catholic churches. Fr. Gregory Baum was even more clear when he wrote: “Concretely and actually the Church of Christ may be realized less, equally, or even more in a Church separated from Rome than in a Church in communion with Rome. This conclusion is inescapable on the basis of the understanding of Church that emerges from the teaching of Vatican Council II.”
Again, Vatican 2 is clearly heretical. It’s not ambiguous everywhere.
To establish that V2 teaches heresy, it is only necessary to find a single heretical statement. As I have previously submitted, the logical contradiction of Quanta Cura by Dignitatis Humanae meets this criterion. To use a legal analogy, one does not, I believe, have to prove every count in an indictment in order to obtain a conviction.
Modern Protestantism seems to dwell primarily on “end time” prophecy. Can a Protestant predict the future correctly and if he or she did would it be from God.?