Some want to claim that 'the SSPX accepts Novus Ordo priests as valid,' and anyone concerned about orders must be a sedevacantist. Fr Álvaro Calderón's 2014 article shows it's more complex than that:
For me, the problem with Sedevacantism is that, if there have been six modernist and heretical popes in a row, that’s a good sign that Vatican I’s ideas about papal infallibility were all wrong. We should continue to hope that, someday, we will have a pope who’s not a heretic and properly exercises the charism of infallibility? It would be better to acknowledge Luther was right in his conviction that the papacy would sacrifice Christianity itself to maintain its power and prerogatives. Isn’t this what we’ve seen? Where is a saintly pope to tell me different?
As best I can tell from the summary, you’re taking a “presuppositional” position that, if we know the Catholic faith to be true, we are not looking for Popperian “falsification” events.
I don’t disagree, but my response would be, what we are engaged in is less like a scientific or philosophical debate and more like warfare. So your main question is not: is this true? Your main question is: am I going to allow my enemies to kill me?
I, for one, am not going to allow Bergoglio to kill me, or even to steal my money, just because he claims “papal infallibility.” He’s a guy wearing a white costume, living in Vatican City, who is both a liar and an ignoramus who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
There is no chance he’s ever going to be replaced by anyone who isn’t exactly like him. Maybe after I’m long dead, in hundreds of years, some new pope will come along claiming “infallibility” for the latest fashionable error. Sorry, I’m not playing anymore.
I don't know anything about the modern philosophical models you're talking about. This is the approach of fundamental theology, namely that we know through natural means and using the Gospels etc as simple historical documents, that there was a man called Christ, that he did certain things and established a Church etc, leading up to the act of faith.
We have already settled the question of whether the Catholic claims are true on other, prior grounds. We are now working out what that means. If you haven't settled that question, or if you're allowing the current events to call it into question, you are currently without the virtue of faith. I'd encourage you to rewind and sort out those more fundamental questions first.
No, it means that Vatican I and the entire corpus of theology on the Papacy going back 2,000 years is entirely correct, because these men *clearly* do not possess the protection of the Holy Ghost. Those who raise this objection either do not understand what that means or do not believe in it.
The convocation, promulgation, and continued promotion of Vatican II is the primary reason these men have not been Vicars of Christ. And no man protected by the Holy Ghost could do such a thing. The conclusion is self-drawingly straight-forward.
Your ideas are exactly what the modernists would like you to believe. Is a modernist a member of the mystical body of Christ? Nope. Can they hold an office in the Church? Nope. The problem we have is one of human respect and people not calling them out as the imposters that they are. We should be “beating them with fists” following the example of St Pope Pius X.
To me, it indicates the opposite (in favor of sedevacantism):
That the dogmatic teaching of Pastor Aeternus being infallibly correct, the legitimacy of the conciliar/post-conciliar popes must called into question.
Agreed, it is only for us to follow what the Church teaches: there is doubt so we must act with to ensure that we follow sacramental rites approved by the Catholic Church and not ones about which we are uncertain.
First of all, Paul VI was an antipope, as the White Smoke 1958 site makes clear. But even if he were a valid pope, this article at Novus Ordo Watch proves that the new rite has invalid form:
The seeming equivocation in Fr. Calderon’s article bothers me:
On the one hand, he finds the NREC only “very probably valid,” (which means he finds it slightly doubtful), yet concludes despite that, it may still be permissible to frequent the sacraments of a priest ordained by a bishop consecrated in this rite, in seeming violation of Church teaching regarding the reception of doubtful sacraments.
What?
Then having just explained such slightly doubtful sacraments may occasionally be received (what??), nevertheless, the doubts are an intolerable shadow cast upon the root of the sacraments, and therefore the rite must be reformed.
What?
Dear Father, if you’ve given permission to receive the sacraments from priests ordained by bishops consecrated in this rite, then why should the rite be in need of reformation?
As the authors of the article note, there is not only an inconsistency inherent in Fr. Calderon’s conclusions, but it also seems to be at odds with Church teaching regarding the need to take a tutiorist position regarding sacramental validity.
To say that the rite is doubtful, but go ahead and use it is conflicted at best.
As no doubt you noted, I'm very sympathetic to what you say.
I think one part of what he says is key though, and may mitigate some of what he said - about their own responsibility being engaged. We can debate whether it is or not, of course. Plus the idea of a "shadow" of a doubt as opposed to a real doubt. I get what he means, but... Hmmmm....
For me, the problem with Sedevacantism is that, if there have been six modernist and heretical popes in a row, that’s a good sign that Vatican I’s ideas about papal infallibility were all wrong. We should continue to hope that, someday, we will have a pope who’s not a heretic and properly exercises the charism of infallibility? It would be better to acknowledge Luther was right in his conviction that the papacy would sacrifice Christianity itself to maintain its power and prerogatives. Isn’t this what we’ve seen? Where is a saintly pope to tell me different?
Thanks John. Have you read these recent ones? They address your points.
https://www.wmreview.org/p/on-the-sede-vacante-thesis-james
https://www.wmreview.org/p/bellarmine-silveira
Also, this idea that “Vatican I was wrong” is seriously problematic. Take a look here:
https://www.wmreview.org/p/faith-falsification
The first one is behind a paywall.
As best I can tell from the summary, you’re taking a “presuppositional” position that, if we know the Catholic faith to be true, we are not looking for Popperian “falsification” events.
I don’t disagree, but my response would be, what we are engaged in is less like a scientific or philosophical debate and more like warfare. So your main question is not: is this true? Your main question is: am I going to allow my enemies to kill me?
I, for one, am not going to allow Bergoglio to kill me, or even to steal my money, just because he claims “papal infallibility.” He’s a guy wearing a white costume, living in Vatican City, who is both a liar and an ignoramus who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
There is no chance he’s ever going to be replaced by anyone who isn’t exactly like him. Maybe after I’m long dead, in hundreds of years, some new pope will come along claiming “infallibility” for the latest fashionable error. Sorry, I’m not playing anymore.
I don't know anything about the modern philosophical models you're talking about. This is the approach of fundamental theology, namely that we know through natural means and using the Gospels etc as simple historical documents, that there was a man called Christ, that he did certain things and established a Church etc, leading up to the act of faith.
We have already settled the question of whether the Catholic claims are true on other, prior grounds. We are now working out what that means. If you haven't settled that question, or if you're allowing the current events to call it into question, you are currently without the virtue of faith. I'd encourage you to rewind and sort out those more fundamental questions first.
No, it means that Vatican I and the entire corpus of theology on the Papacy going back 2,000 years is entirely correct, because these men *clearly* do not possess the protection of the Holy Ghost. Those who raise this objection either do not understand what that means or do not believe in it.
The convocation, promulgation, and continued promotion of Vatican II is the primary reason these men have not been Vicars of Christ. And no man protected by the Holy Ghost could do such a thing. The conclusion is self-drawingly straight-forward.
Your ideas are exactly what the modernists would like you to believe. Is a modernist a member of the mystical body of Christ? Nope. Can they hold an office in the Church? Nope. The problem we have is one of human respect and people not calling them out as the imposters that they are. We should be “beating them with fists” following the example of St Pope Pius X.
To me, it indicates the opposite (in favor of sedevacantism):
That the dogmatic teaching of Pastor Aeternus being infallibly correct, the legitimacy of the conciliar/post-conciliar popes must called into question.
Absolutely.
Do you yourself believe the rite is valid?
I find the question perplexing. I don't think the arguments for validity are compelling as many seem to think.
By and large I think the below is basically along the right lines.
https://www.wmreview.org/p/novus-ordo-sacraments
Agreed, it is only for us to follow what the Church teaches: there is doubt so we must act with to ensure that we follow sacramental rites approved by the Catholic Church and not ones about which we are uncertain.
Thanks for publishing this article, especially the footnotes rebutting Fr Cekada which haven’t made it into English before.
First of all, Paul VI was an antipope, as the White Smoke 1958 site makes clear. But even if he were a valid pope, this article at Novus Ordo Watch proves that the new rite has invalid form:
novusordowatch.org/2018/06/unholy-orders-50-years-invalid-ordinations
The seeming equivocation in Fr. Calderon’s article bothers me:
On the one hand, he finds the NREC only “very probably valid,” (which means he finds it slightly doubtful), yet concludes despite that, it may still be permissible to frequent the sacraments of a priest ordained by a bishop consecrated in this rite, in seeming violation of Church teaching regarding the reception of doubtful sacraments.
What?
Then having just explained such slightly doubtful sacraments may occasionally be received (what??), nevertheless, the doubts are an intolerable shadow cast upon the root of the sacraments, and therefore the rite must be reformed.
What?
Dear Father, if you’ve given permission to receive the sacraments from priests ordained by bishops consecrated in this rite, then why should the rite be in need of reformation?
As the authors of the article note, there is not only an inconsistency inherent in Fr. Calderon’s conclusions, but it also seems to be at odds with Church teaching regarding the need to take a tutiorist position regarding sacramental validity.
To say that the rite is doubtful, but go ahead and use it is conflicted at best.
Hi Sean,
As no doubt you noted, I'm very sympathetic to what you say.
I think one part of what he says is key though, and may mitigate some of what he said - about their own responsibility being engaged. We can debate whether it is or not, of course. Plus the idea of a "shadow" of a doubt as opposed to a real doubt. I get what he means, but... Hmmmm....
Regardless, did you see this:
https://www.wmreview.org/p/novus-ordo-sacraments