Contra Sede Vacante

There is an unfortunate phenomenon on social media.  A movement full of vitriol, relentless trolling, antisemitic and other racial slurs, and just plain ignorance of actual Catholic teaching.  I am speaking here of sedevacantism.  What exactly is sedevacantism?

Sedevacantism is the belief that, at very least since 1958--upon the death of Pope Pius XII--that every Pontiff of the Catholic Church has been, and is, an "antipope."  However this is the tip of the iceberg.  There are as many different versions of sedevacantism as there are sedevacantists!  There are some I have encountered who claim that Pope Pius XII was a heretic and therefore an anti-pope.  Still there are even those whom claim that we may not have had a valid Pontiff since Pope Pius IX.  As mentioned prior, there are as many versions of sedevacantism as there are sedevacantists.  In a word, adherents to sedevacantes position are divided over what constitutes a valid Pontiff, and with most of them claiming to be laypersons of the Catholic Church it is very easy to see that they have read a handful of erroneous propaganda and have developed a disordered point of view of the Church.

Similar to them, and just as problematic, are the conclavists, however I will not address them at this juncture.  I should now address a brief history of sedevacantism as far as it relates to our modern history.  I will show the brief history vis a vis the crazed time frame that occurred after the Second Vatican Council (hereafter Vatican II).

It all began when nine Priests, now formerly of the Society of St. Pius X, brought up objections to the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre during the late 1970s.  The controversial Archbishop was having difficulty among many prelates within the Church, however was still allowed to teach and form those Seminarians who desired to be taught by him.  The nine Priests objected to Abp. Lefebvre maintaining not only ties with the Vatican but also fidelity to Pope Paul VI who was the Supreme Pontiff (e.g. the Pope) until 1977.  Abp. Lefebvre maintained that as he was a Bishop of the Catholic Church, as he had sworn fidelity to the Holy Father when we was consecrated a Bishop, and would continue to do so.  This did not sit very well with these nine Priests and so they began teaching those under them to resist the instructions of Abp. Lefebvre.  Circa 1983 the late Archbishop expelled those nine Priests, who in turn took with them their own students, some of whom waited to be ordained by Abp. Lefebvre prior to leaving the SSPX.  Those who left, or were expelled, formed together to found the schismatic Society of St. Pius V (SSPV).  Thus sedevacantism is a split from the Church.

In my personal point of view these nine Priest committed an act of schism by refusing the guidance of their superior and therefore the Church.  Their schism de facto cut them off from communion with the Church, and therefore they cannot be considered Catholic.

Let us flash forward 36 years.  What began as nine Priests acting in disobedience has spiraled into several splinter groups.  It could be argued that SSPX did not seem traditional enough, and so the sedevacantists severed ties with Rome; similar to how Martin Luther did in 1517 when he thought that the Church could not meet his personal standards.  From SSPV there are others who split because SSPV was not traditional enough because they held that Pius XII was a valid Pontiff.  This spiral continues similar to how John Calvin thought that Luther was too Catholic and promulgated his own brand of bad theology that one is predestined to Heaven or Hell arbitrarily because somehow the mercy of God is void and favoritism is the name of the game.

Today there exists sedevacantists who claim to be from a Catholic monastery in New York state.  These effectively are taught that SSPX, the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest (ICRSS), and other communities that use exclusively the liturgical books of 1962 are not Catholic and say invalid Masses.  This of course is not true!  One can observe from their style of ad hominem attacks, quoting of obscure situations from the recesses of Church history, and at times even antisemitic stances that they are only interested in one thing: showing how their version of Jesus is better than the next person's, and so on.  I have seen this before in the vitriol preached from the pulpits of some protestant sects who claim wrongly the usual objections of the Catholic faith (i.e. the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Saints, the Pope, the Eucharist, etc.).  So one can ask themselves, "How are sedevacantists different from mainstream Protestants?"  The short answer is that they are no different, and in some ways just as extremist as the Westboro Baptist Church.

But cannot their arguments be verified?  This is where it can be easy to get wrapped up in their arguments and be fooled into thinking that they're correct in their position.  Recently, in a discussion I was having with a sedevacantist I proposed that Christ promised that "the gates of the Hell shall not prevail" (Matthew 16:18) against the Church.  In response I was given the counter argument, citing Pope St. Leo IX as the source, "The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter... because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome." Taken at face value this would seem to indicate that when a Pontiff states something that is contrary to what the Church has always taught that it immediately invalidates the Papacy and the one who is Pope fails to be the Pope.

In the same conversation it was claimed that I am "rejecting Christ's words that the gates of hell will never prevail because [I am] effectively saying that the 'gates of hell' are sitting at the VERY TOP of His Church." This is an absurd take, because it essentially states that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has no power to protect His Church against Her very Bishops and Pontiff! That is as the first Pope, St. Peter, defines in his second epistle (letter) as a "personal interpretation." (2 Peter 1:16-20) I could give more examples, but we would be here all day.

What is contained in the very eloquently stated arguments and talking points is something nefarious. Hiding beneath the facade of appearances of zealous devotion to the Church and Her teaching are superfluous arguments, circular logic, and a twisting of what the Church teaches to satisfy a hidden desire to deceive all who are unprepared into believing that they are correct. For any who do not know their faith well enough they will be easily taken into the charm of their claims. Simply put their claims address the overwhelming crisis in the Church by manipulating the emotions of those who at the moment, and for good reason, feel that the Church is falling apart. And what an opportunity the sedevacantists have chosen. That they have chosen to capitalize on the crisis in the Church by taking to social media to promote their deception is the only thing I can say is a point in their favor.

What makes sedevacantism so appealing is that it appears to solve a crisis in the Church. But at what cost? Accepting the sedevacantist position means falling into a similar error that unfortunately many who took and ran with the so-called "spirit of Vatican II" fell.

Ultramontanism is the error that everything that falls from the mouth of the Pope is infallible and therefore to be taken, believed, and acted upon with immediate effect. This is not true. The First Vatican Council discussed Papal infallibility in these words, "For the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation of the deposit of faith transmitted by the Apostles." From this we know that the infallibility of the Pope is only when speaking of faith and morals. It is well worth it to research, in depth, the documents of Vatican I because in no way does it make out the Pope to be some sort of super king with a hyper infallibility. Yet this is what both sedevacantists and some who adhere to the craziness of the 1970s "spirit of Vatican II" conflate Papal infallibility to mean, which is contrary to Vatican I!

To conclude, the problem with sedevacantism goes much deeper than one can write about in brief. Sedevacantism is a misappropriation of Church teaching and is therefore a true poison to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Once you have backed them into a corner, and they run out of arguments, they return ad hominem attacks, and if you're Catholic claim that you are excommunicated. These "excommunications" are not valid, nor should they ever be treated with more than a good laugh, since only a Bishop (including the Pope) can excommunicate someone, so really it just takes on the appearance of an overzealous "citizen arrest" situation that just goes to further demonstrate that truly, no matter what they claim, they are just as knowledgeable about what the Catholic Church actually teaches as someone who listens to a protestant pastor drone on about the alleged heresies of the Roman Catholic Church.

Of Traditionalist Backbiting

There is a problem my fellow lay faithful. It is a cancer, and it grows among us to stifle out all of our efforts to preserve, defend, and promulgate the Traditions of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. This problem is backbiting.

So what is backbiting?

St. Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica (IIa. IIae. Q. 73) tells us that "Just as one man injures another by deed in two ways,--openly, as by robbery or by doing him any kind of violence,--and secretly, as by theft, or by a crafty blow, so again one man injures another by words in two ways;--in one way, openly, and in this done by reviling him, as stated above (Q. 72, A. 1),--and in another secretly, and this is backbiting."  Backbiting is thus a sin against charity, because it seeks to speak ill of another in order to detract from the good name or reputation of that person. However, among traditional Catholics this is done on a more subtle and larger scale.

There are some who would say I am with SSPX!, and another that would say I am with the Institute!, others still would say I am with the Fraternity!, and still, those who would say that they are with whatever sort of Traditional Latin Mass that they go to.  Some, even so, go so far as to even say something along the lines of I am a _____ Catholic! and insert name of what religious community or Diocese is hosting their Latin Mass.

Is this madness not contrary to our very essence? Did not Jesus command us, "Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all the things whatsoever I have commanded you." In light of the mission of the Church and of the Traditional Catholic raison d'etre, it seems that much of the backbiting is over who is superior or who has a valid Mass. Why are we so divided?

"Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" These words from St. Paul (I Cor 1:12-13) should challenge us and give us something to reflect on. Said another way, was SSPX crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter? Nay! Christ suffered Crucifixion for you, and you were baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost!

Furthermore, when we say things such as I'm in the SSPX, or I'm a Fraternity Catholic, or a hundred other things, are not we rending the seamless garment of Christ? Yes, we say also that we are Traditional Catholics, and indeed we are Traditional Catholics. This distinction in many areas is very important, but will not be discussed now. By these things also, which innocently enough associate ourselves with our particular parish, unintentionally claim ourselves as members of that Priestly Society or diocese. It is inappropriate to claim that we belong to the SSPX, ICRSS, FSSP, or any religious order and diocese unless we have received consecrations or admittance to their ranks! This of course means that unless you are a third order, lay associate, seminarian, religious brother/sister, or Priest, you may not claim to be a member.

To overcome some of the backbiting and what can be referred to as "infighting" there are only three criteria that Traditional Catholics should ever have when looking for a Traditional Latin Mass to assist at:

1. The use of the 1962 Roman Missal
2. Recognition of the current Pope as truly the Vicar of Christ and successor of St. Peter
3. Adherence to the Traditions and Teaching of Holy Mother Church

Let us all pray, uniting our prayers to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts of Jesus and Mary for better unity among all traditionalists. May our work to promulgate the traditions and teachings of the Church which for 60 years have been under attack, and even forgotten in many places, be brought to fruition by God's grace and providence!

The Scandal of Fr. Martin, SJ

Once again Fr. James Martin is taking to Twitter. This time in praise of another Priest who recently was arrested for protesting immigration reform. This other Priest did state publicly that his intent was to be arrested. And today Fr. Martin tweets: "Fr ThomasReeseSJ arrested in US Senate during protest on behalf of Dreamers. On the Mount of Beatitudes today in the Holy Land we read out Jesus's words: 'Blessed are those who are persecuted for the sale of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.' So blessed is he!"

To clarify - before we continue - and may it be clear that the Church does not endorse illegal activity, and most certainly discourages against purposely breaking the law!

On the outside, this looks like a harmless tweet in support of a brother Priest defending the downtrodden. There is no need to bring up politics, so none will be discussed. However, underlying this tweet, with the accompanied verse from St. Matthews Gospel, is a Pandora's box of, as is the norm with Fr. Martin, pushing a political agenda. What's more is that this sort of grandstanding was done on social media to make a political, not catechetical point.

This grandstanding was actually what Christ warns us against shortly later in Matthew 6:1-5 wherein Jesus says, "Take heed that you do not your justice before men, to be seen by them: otherwise you shall not have a reward of your Father who is in heaven. Therefore when thou dost an almsdeed, sound not a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be honoured by men. Amen I say to you, they have received their reward. But when thou dost alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doth. That thy alms may be in secret, and thy Father who seeth in secret will repay thee. And when ye pray, you shall not be as the hypocrites, that love to stand and pray in the synagogues and corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men: Amen I say to you, they have received their reward."

So what is the crux of the matter here?

What makes Fr. Martin's tweet problematic is that it is a tweet that reads much more like look at how great I am. Look at how great this Priest is. In no way is any credit given to our blessed Lord! Moreover, the use of scripture to back up a publicly premeditated intent to break the law essentially flies in the face of reason, and further abuses the words of Christ to exhalt, when on the contrary one should always be humble when doing God's service (even if somehow the law of the land enters the scene).

Just as with all of Fr. Martin's social network activity, it is beyond a reasonable doubt that, even with the best possible of intents, his activity is scandalous. In the Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas states, "Scandal is, therefore, fittingly defined as something less rightly done or said, that occasions another's spiritual downfall." (ST II-II Q.43 A.1) With such a definition it is hard to believe how the tweets associated with Fr. Martin can not be an occasion of scandal for souls. Repeatedly denouncing the faith of those who do not share his opinion, by the use of name calling and other such word play reserved for children who do not know better, has a great risk scandalizing souls by way of sowing confusion and mistrust of his fellow Priests and religious - who rightly should be trusted by the lay faithful.

The grandstanding, name calling, and scandalous activity evident on his Twitter feed is not becoming of one who claims to be an alter Christus, that is, another Christ, but becoming of one who enables a victim mentality among followers, some who, in a seeming chorus, repeat his slurs and perjuries against those who have honest questions, or who disagree. This bullying by his followers is scandalous too, because they claim to want an end to the apparent "bully pulpit" as also Fr. Martin claims. So why the appearance of hypocrisy? Possibly because once you establish your role as a victim, it is not difficult to find all sorts of justification - even scriptural - for all sorts of bad, reckless behavior. Such a mindset is harmful as it is often difficult to see how one could be harming others despite one's desire for help.

Some are not scandalized, which is very good. In this sense Fr. Martin may only be scandalous to those who are not fortified well in their understanding or practice of faith. It may be possible too, since once cannot truly know Fr. Martin's intents or motives, that it may be a case of what St. Thomas Aquinas calls passive scandal. St. Thomas Aquinas tells us that "One man's word or deed is the accidental cause of another's sin, when he neither intends to lead him into sin, and yet this other one, though being ill-disposed, is led into sin, for instance, into envy of another's good, and then he who does this righteous act, does not, so far as he is concerned, afford an occasion of the other's downfall... Wherefore this is passive scandal, since he that acts rightly does not for his own part, afford the occasion of another's downfall." (ST II-II Q.43 A.1)

It is perfectly understandable at times that it is difficult not to perceive that despite all else that what appears to be is as St. Thomas Aquinas defines as active scandal. Active scandal of course is much more severe and is a great stumbling block to these little ones. As is universal, cases of scandal must be avoided to preserve all from sin and spiritual misfortune.