Dear John W.
This evening, you sent us a comment on a post
that nearly two years ago
was written on the subject of Sedevacantism.
Providence has given the prompt.
We address these blog posts to you.
St Alphonsus often quotes the Holy Scripture verse that says:
"With desolation is all the land made desolate,
because there is none who considereth in his heart."
(Jer 12:11)
I invite you
and all readers who have taken the Sedevacantist "position"
to mull over some Sedevacantist points worthy of consideration.
Fr. Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga, S.J.
(Oct. 12, 1899 - April 28, 1976).
Let us consider that this priest was spiritual father of Sedevacantism:
He was the first to announce that
there has been no true Pope from the time of Pius XII;
or, according to the position, if,
for the sake of argument John XXIII was validly elected,
he fell from his papacy
at some moment during the Second Vatican Council.
Let us consider carefully:
Fr. Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga announced that there was no Pope
only in 1971...
... 8 years after the death
of Pope John XXIII
(+ 3 June, 1963)
or
13 years after the death
of Pope Pius XII
( + 9 October, 1958).
or
13 years after the death
of Pope Pius XII
( + 9 October, 1958).
Conclusion:
For between 8 and 13 years
the Roman Catholic Church throughout the world
did not know that it had no Pope.
But that is impossible!
But that is impossible!
For, if that were true,
the Ecclesia docens, the Teaching Church
[which is the bishops in their divinely authorized capacity
of teaching the faithful in matters pertaining to salvation
and sanctification]
was duped!
the Ecclesia docens, the Teaching Church
[which is the bishops in their divinely authorized capacity
of teaching the faithful in matters pertaining to salvation
and sanctification]
was duped!
Which would mean that is all the Bishops of the Church
were left in darkness
were left in darkness
about this vital information pertaining to salvation.
It would mean that the Holy Ghost left the Church in error
for between 8 and 13 years.....
...no...
Sedevacantism is not credible.
...no...
Sedevacantism is not credible.
Consider the mystic Padre Pio:
He could read hearts, he bilocated, he had the gift of prophesy
and he bore the stigmata wounds of Our Lord.
Padre Pio said Mass until 23 September 1968.
He named Pope John XXIII in the Canon of the Mass.
Was this prophet who could read hearts also duped
perhaps for 5 years, perhaps for 10 years?
Consider again the Ecclesia docens, the Teaching Church:
(The Bishops in their divinely authorized capacity
of teaching the faithful in matters pertaining to salvation
and sanctification.)
(The Bishops in their divinely authorized capacity
of teaching the faithful in matters pertaining to salvation
and sanctification.)
Which portion of the teaching Church
considered that Pope John XXIII was not the Pope?
(They were all together at the Council with John XXIII.
John XXIII was before the eyes of 2,100 bishops.
All could hear and scrutinize him.
They could talk together.
The didn't even need to call a Council, since they were in one.
All could hear and scrutinize him.
They could talk together.
The didn't even need to call a Council, since they were in one.
Could it ever get better than that?)
There was no portion of the teaching Church
that arose to contest Pope John XXIII as the true Pope;
there was not even one bishop.
There was no portion of the Ecclesia docens,
that even doubted the papacy of John XXIII.
there was not even one bishop.
Consider the case of a real Antipope:
Some part, large or small, of the Teaching Church, the Bishops,
guided by the Holy Ghost,
immediately knows the Antipope is there and declares the fact.
This is not the case with the Sedevacantism of
Fr. Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga.
Fr. Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga.
He was not part of the Teaching Church.
His theory is a dangerous error and causes
fatal spiritual delusions and the loss of souls.
His theory is a dangerous error and causes
fatal spiritual delusions and the loss of souls.
Dear John,
Pope John XXIII was a real Pope, a holy Pope
and here is the proof:
and here is the proof:
Six years before 1971,
when Fr. Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga published his book,
when Fr. Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga published his book,
on 26 May 1966
John XXIII worked this stupendous miracle.
John XXIII worked this stupendous miracle.
In the light of this miracle John,
consider your own soul and renounce your position.
consider your own soul and renounce your position.
Miracles decide questions and resolve doubts.
They cut to the chase.
This miracles proves that John XXIII was a true Pope.
This miracle proves that the theory of Sedevacantism is wrong.
They cut to the chase.
This miracles proves that John XXIII was a true Pope.
This miracle proves that the theory of Sedevacantism is wrong.
Blessed John XXIII,
pray for your child John
and for all who cling to the delusions of Sedevacantism.
pray for your child John
and for all who cling to the delusions of Sedevacantism.
ReplyDeleteThank you for this post - I read the miraculous story of Sr Caterina a while back. Certainly something has happened in the Church since WWII. Why have so many preists lost any sense of the Sacredness of the Mass or the Sacrifice? Is there any Sacrifice in many versions of the Novus Ordo? and why have countless versions of the Novus Ordo come to define countless dioceses from the bishop down to the lay as largely unrecognisably Catholic apart from the name? The abuses that have sprung up from the ground of the Novus Ordo are choking any sense let alone memory of 1900 years of Holy Ghost sculptured liturgy to the point where that 'former' liturgy is viewed with suspiscian or outright contempt. Where and when did the 'smoke of satan' enter? And how do seekers after Our Lord yoked with a sense and memory move forward without falling away?
Keep your eyes on Christ and His Church! Remember that the devil wants you to be discouraged. Pay for the priests and bishops, especially the Holy Father!
DeleteThank you for your further comments on Sedevacantism and for your defence of John XXIII.
ReplyDeleteI think that far more of us find Paul VI an issue, though, and if it were not for Paul VI then the question of his predecessor would not have arisen. The difficulty is to accept that a genuine Pope could have presided over - even encouraged in many ways - such a wholesale destruction of the Faith as Paul VI did.
I hope that at some stage you will deal with the Paul VI problem.
Best wishes
Benedictine Oblate
Thank you Father, I used to have temptations about this, but your arguments are very logical, especially that the Church will recognize an Antipope immediately. Too bad many Sedevacantist websites are making so much noise that their adherents probably have a hard time hearing reasonable arguments.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your post, Father, and may I add a couple more considerations. The First Vatican council solemnly taught that the institution of the Papacy would endure firm until the end of time. Now, the counter argument from the sedevacantists is that the See of Peter is always vacant between the death of one Pope and the election of another. Usually the gap is a few months, but the record is over 3 years. That being the case, what in theory stops the vacancy being say 40, 50 or 60 years? The answer is the deceased Pope will have set in motion a process of electing a new Pope. Which is what Pope Pius XII did and the result was the election of Bl John XXIII. If the sedevacantist thesis was correct, there is no mechanism in place to elect a new Pope. Finally, Pope Leo XIII taught in Satis Cognitum that the Catholic Church will ALWAYS be a VISIBLE institution.
ReplyDeleteWithout going into the details of my own spiritual journey, I have come to the conclusion that the only place there is any spiritual sanity and stability is in the MAINSTREAM of the Catholic Church, avoiding errors both on the left (such as what one priest called the Magisterium of Nuns) and on the right (such as what I call the Magisterium of questionable mystics and revelations).
ReplyDeletewretchedwithouthope, to answer your question, it is impossible for the Church to issue invalid or ineffective rites for the Sacraments, because the Church is indefectable. This means that a validly ordained priest celebrating any authorized Eucharistic Liturgy, including the Ordinary Form, and following the rubrics and saying the appointed prayers, in the absence of positively known evidence to the contrary, confects the Eucharist (or as we say in the East, accomplishes the Mystery of the Eucharist). If he says the prayers and follows liturgical norms (which are rather wide, even in the Extraordinary form), intention must be presumed.
If there is sin any ANY priest's life, he may celebrate any sacrament unto his own damnation, but they are still grace-filled and effecacious for those who approach them with the proper spiritual dispositions. To say otherwise is to fall into the heresy of Donatism.
I would like to apologize here and now for not spelling
ReplyDeletewretchedwithhope's screen name correctly. I misread it, and did not notice my error until after I had sent my reply.