Gerry Matatics a ''sedevacantist''?
Gerry Replies (slightly revised November 21, 2007):
...This in turn necessarily entails a complete rejection of those "reforms" illicitly promulgated by these men: Vatican II, the New Mass and new sacraments, the New Code of Canon Law, the New Catechism, the new canonizations (e.g., of Msgr. Escriva, Mother Theresa, et al), and so forth.
For the record, Mother Theresa was beatified but not canonized.
It is an indisputable FACT that Catholics, at many critical moments of their Church's history, have had to reject both antipopes (every Church historian agrees that there have been over 40 of them -- many of them ruling right from Rome itself)
Yet there was always another papal claimant in existance, even if the false claimant was sitting in Rome. There was never only an anti-pope sitting in Rome accepted by practically all of the universal Church as pope with no alternative.
and "robber councils" (over 17 of them falsely purporting to be valid councils).
The Orthodox use this same logic to discard the councils they don't like. Bottom line is that the Church decides which councils were valid, not myself or Mr. Matatics.
The "sedevacantist" only wishes to be a Catholic, nothing more: to believe what Catholics have always believed, worship as Catholics have always worshiped, live as Catholics have always lived. No additional nickname is therefore necessary.
Catholics in the early centuries didn't necessarily have to believe in the Assumption, Immaculate Conception, etc. Masses were entirely different. Different traditions developed all over the universal Church. There was never one strictly uniform way of living and worshipping as a Catholic. Mr. Matatics makes it seem as if every Catholic from 33-1958 AD lived, worshipped, and believed exactly the same things.
2. The term is unauthorized. Popes in the past have instructed Catholics not to use additional nicknames, but simply to identify themselves as "Catholics." In this regard I have on my website a pertinent quote from Pope Benedict XV (note: not XVI!), from his encyclical letter Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum 24 (1914), where he says:
Does this prohibition include the nicknames "Novus Ordite" and "Conciliar Catholic"?
4. The term is prejudicial. Although my research into the origin of the term "sedevacantist" is ongoing, my suspicion is that it was a term of abuse coined by the opponents of the position, not by its adherents - just as Arians labeled upholders of Nicene orthodoxy as "Athanasianites" rather than simply "Catholics," and misappropriated to themselves (the Arians) the title of being "Catholics."
The term seems simply descriptive. It means empty chair. Those who believe the Chair of Peter is presently empty.
5. The term is inaccurate. In canon law, when a pope dies and everyone agrees there is a need for a conclave to elect a successor, a state of sede vacante ("the seat [being] vacant") is declared by the Church. A completely different situation obtains, however, when a man who is not the properly elected pope sits, or purports to sit, upon the See of Peter, and who thereby "impedes" a true pope from sitting thereupon. The canonical term for this scenario is not sede vacante but sede impedite, so if a nickname were necessary (which it is not; see above) for those rejecting Benedict XVI et al, it would be "sede-impeditist," not "sedevacantist."
How does an anti-pope sitting on the Chair "impede" a true pope from sitting there? Those who believe this can elect their own "true pope" and he can sit on the Chair, which is a figurative term anyway. The real impeding here is the fact that practically the entire visible Church accepts BXVI as pope. Can the entire Church apostasize without defecting?
6. The term claims too much. As a reasonable man, I reject as rather ridiculous (on the face of it) the claims of the self-appointed pseudo-popes of our time (e.g., "Pope" Pius XIII, "Pope" Gregory XVII, "Pope" Michael I, et al) to be successors of St. Peter. (Though, to be fair, I don't find the claims of Ratzinger and his four predecessors to be Catholics, and therefore popes, any less laughable. Pius XIII and company at least seem to be orthodox Catholics, however flimsy ad far-fetched the legal pretensions of the "conclaves" that elected them.)
Why does Mr. Matatics find the claims of these popes ridiculous? If BXVI, elected by Cardinal electors and accepted by the entire visible Church as pope is somehow not pope, according to Mr. Matatics, surely he should be open to the possibility that one of these men may be. Once we reject the normal rules for conclaves and universal acceptance of a pope as evidence he is valid, are we left with anything else than our personal opinions as to what would constitute a valid conclave? It seems Mr. Matatics should engage in a debate with Pius XIII to truly discern and study whether Pius XIII is pope.
However, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that, in fulfillment of many prophecies (docuмented in such books as Yves Dupont, Catholic Prophecy; Fr. Gerald Culleton, The Prophets and Our Times; Edward Connor, Prophecy for Today, all published by TAN Books) there could be, somehow, a "hidden" pope that God will bring forth at the predestined moment to bring an end to our current crisis.
How does he know that either Pius XIII, Gregory XVII, or Pope Michael are not that "hidden" pope God brought forth at the predestined moment to bring an end to our current crisis? If none of them are "it" how will we know who it is? How will this pope be elected with no valid electors? Will he descend miraculously from Heaven? I'm serious.
The fact is, everyone who hold the position nicknamed "sedevacantism" believes that there is much more that is wrong with the current state of affairs than simply an antipope sitting upon the See of Peter, as though the crisis would be completely resolved if tomorrow an orthodox Catholic were seated upon the throne. Though the crisis could then be resolved in principle, there would be much work to be done, for the sedevacantist believes, not just that there is a false pope currently claiming to be a true one, but that there is a false Mass, false sacraments, a false catechism, a false code of canon law - in sum, a false "church" claiming to be the true Catholic Church.
So then how has the Church not defected?
Syllogism #1: No true bishop, no true pope
New Rite of consecration is valid or else the Church failed.
Syllogism #2: No true orthodoxy, no true pope
He quotes Novus Ordo Watch and the Dimonds for evidence of this?
BXVI is not a manifest heretic.
Syllogism #3: No true Church, no true pope
No true Church, Christ lied. There is no VCII Church. There is one Catholic Church before and after.
It goes without saying that I do not necessarily agree with or endorse every detail of every article on these other websites, especially on other matters. Particularly is this true with regard to their various views on the hotly-debated dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ("outside the Church no salvation"). Some of these websites take too unacceptably liberal a view of this dogma, holding, for example, that those who do not profess the Catholic Faith could still be saved -- despite the clear teaching of the Athanasian Creed and infallible papal pronouncements to the contrary.
And who decides what to believe and what is correct? Mr. Matatics? Fr. Cekada? The Dimonds? Mr. Matatics say it is obvious! Just adhere to the "clear teaching" which happens to obviously coincide with his own opinion. Yet, the Protetsants thought it was "clear" from Scripture that the Catholic Church was in greivous error. Yet they also disagreed with themselves on almost every other point.
Topic: A One-Step Refutation of Sedevacantism (Read 8884 times)