I don't believe Sedevacantism existed before the New Mass was released and horrified millions of Catholics.

If you woke up next Sunday and it was 1950, you'd better head to your local parish and attend Mass there. If you didn't, you wouldn't be a Catholic PERIOD.

But what about 1961, or 1962?

Many Sedevacantists reject the 1962 Missal, and the first "non-pope" to most Sedes is John XXIII. And he reigned before the Council started. And he certainly reigned several years before the Vatican II changes started to be implemented. And he reigned even more years before the N.O.M. came out.

My point:

Can Sedevacantists point to a single man, cleric or lay, who decried Pope John XXIII as a non-pope before 1969?

Didn't all the Sedevacantists and their ancestors happily attend Mass in the mainstream Church UNTIL THE NOVUS ORDO MASS CAME OUT?

Wouldn't this expose Sedevacantism as a knee-jerk, emotional reaction rather than a calm, rational one?

I mean, if it's the "truth" that John XXIII was not Pope, then SOMEONE should have pointed it out before we all had a visceral, emotional reason to point it out.


Back in the 70's, it was much simpler to be a Trad. You find a priest willing to say the Tridentine Mass, you spread the word, and you attend such Masses whenever you can. Period. Sede/non-sede/R&R/SSPX/Feeneyism were not do-or-die issues yet.

Doesn't this expose Sedevacantism as the knee-jerk, emotional reaction that it is?

You could say the exact same thing about being a "traditionalist."

The father of Sedevacantism was, according to CMRI's website, the founder of the CMRI himself, disgraced schismatic Francis Schuckardt about 1967, but I'm not sure if even he decried Pope John XXIII as a non-pope before 1969.

Fascinating bit (which I didn't know) about Tom Costello.  When Roncalli was elected, Dr. Elizabeth Gerstner regarded him as a usurper who had obtained his papacy through illegitimate means, was aware of Roncalli's visit to the Masonic Lodge the night before his election (or before the conclave started - I forget which), so while not specifically sedevacantist (she did regard Roncalli as having obtained it, nevertheless) there is something kind of "proto-sedevacantist" about her observations back then.  It all just goes to show that Catholics did not ALL sleep through the 1960's loss of faith.

However, the Feeney question most certainly was raging at the time, held only most barely in check by the occasional (but regrettably brief) official theological responses from the Church's approved theologians and disciplinary actions.  I do point out that Fr. Feeney did write in Bread of Life (page 42), "The most visible ruler in the world, our Holy Father, in his white robe and white zucchetto, may as well take off his triple tiara and get down from his golden throne, and leave Christianity to the kind of committee arrangements to which it is committed in the present-day America, if we keep on preaching "Baptism of Desire."  One gets the clear indication there that had Pope Pius XII been more clear, explicit, and unmistakable about his support, approval, and most of all his total and infallibly-intended support for the contents and findings expressed in the Marchetti-Selvaggiani letter, Fr. Feeney would have declared "Sede Vacante!"

The failure of Feeney and Gerstner (and apparently everyone else) to declare Sede Vacante during the reign of John XXIII seems more like a "failure of imagination" rather than any clear and substantive claims to the papacy on the part of Roncalli - it just never occurred to anyone that someone seemingly elected pope and widely thought of as such would in fact - per the more detailed technicalities of Catholic doctrine - therefore not be a real and actual Roman Catholic Pope.  Had the notion simply been breathed back then, I think many would have at least wondered, "there might be something to this."  Perhaps the question might never have arisen had Roncalli been followed by a real Catholic.  It was the far more odious and ridiculous career of Montini as "Paul VI" which compelled Catholics to begin digging into their theological manuals and discovering the concept of Sede Vacante as expressed therein.

So we have Tom Costello being very vocal about the evil of Vatican 2 while it was in session.

But did he stop going to Mass at his parishes because of it? Did he start setting up "Trad" chapels while Vatican 2 was still in session? If so, do you have any proof of this?

How serious did he consider it?

Another possibility in cases like this: sometimes a person will be overboard in their criticism of something, but then turn out to be MORE RIGHT than they ever could have suspected. In other words, they were subjectively wrong but due to a fortuitous coincidence, they turned out to be objectively right.

I'm sure some in the Resistance never liked the SSPX to begin with. Not most of them, but a few of them.

You WILL find malcontents come out of the woodwork to jump on the bandwagon whenever you have a revolutionary development like Vatican II/the New Mass, or Bishop Fellay's "new SSPX brand" and rapprochement with Rome.

That's why I have to sometimes ban users from CathInfo: they claim to be part of the Traditional Catholic bandwagon (those who oppose Conciliar Rome) but THEY in fact have been opposing Rome for 120+ years because they are actually OLD CATHOLICS.

Well yes Mr. Costello did indeed. He and Chuck McFarland started St. Athanasius in 1969 and begun flying in different independent priests even as far away as European countries. This chapel later became St. Michael's and was a pure sedevacantist Chapel until 1994 when it was taken over by the St. Pius X Society. During that Long span the chapel had such priests as Bishop Dolan (then Father) Fr. Bolduc and many others. They obviously did not start going to independent chapels during the council because the blasphemous new mass was not yet being said, nor was the onslaught of errors and heresies being forced down our throats. Personally I don't understand what the point of this attempt to dismiss sedevacantism during the council period, but maybe I am missing something.

It was in fact so serious to Tom Costello that he put his career and standing in the Catholic community in grave jeopardy. H e was written up in Time magazine and Fortune during the council because of his long wars with the local Bishop and these episodes got back to Rome precipitating the visits from jolly John's minions in an attempt to silence him. It didn't work! He was beaten up here in OKC by a group of progressive Catholics who all later admitted it was done by the urging of some in the diocese. He never let up and remained relentless until his death in 2010. His efforts became so renowned that Hoot Gibson, Omlor and many others sought him out on a regular basis for counsel.

I am not sure what proof you would require of me. I attended Mass at St. Michael's from 1990 to 1994, i spent most of my adult life at Tom's feet listening to the him and Hoot Gibson talk of the crisis. I have all of the copies of his Yellow Sheet, and the magazine articles he was in during the counsel. His name here in OKC is infamous and the stories of his interruptions of the new mass in 1069 are legendary. The reality is that he was not alone during these escapades. He did not call himself a sedevacantist but that is what he was, even as earl;y as the 60's. In Oklahoma he became so notorious for his ant-John stand that he was given the honorary title of Pope Obnoxious I by the local Traditional Catholic Group. My point is that their were sedes in those early years, not in name, but in practice. I am sure the group here in OKC was not the only group. These groups were born of the intellect in the face of obvious error and innovation. The emotions were an afterthought. These groups were resistance led, not emotion led. I began long ago to write the history of Mr. Costello and never seemed to be up to the task.  

Ok, 1969. Close enough.  I was more interested in 1960, 1961, 1962. -- before there was anything emotional to reject, when it was all 100% intellectual.

I mean, either he was Pope or he wasn't, right?

But back to my question, it sounds like even this pioneer Costello attended his local parish until 1969. Would everyone on CathInfo do the same?

To the convinced Sedevacantists on CathInfo: if you found yourself in 1962 under the pontificate (or "pontificate") of John XXIII, would you attend your local parish which offered the 1962 Mass, or would it already be "Trad time" for you, despite the fact that NO ONE, not even the hardest core Sedevacantists, refrained from Mass at their parishes back then. There were 0 "Traditional" (independent of Rome) chapels before the New Mass was released.

Here is why I started this thread. I have a point here: They saw no problem being "una cuм John XXIII". They didn't think it made them guilty before God, or any less Catholic. They RESISTED, sure, but they weren't so extreme that they thought an "Una cuм erroneous Pope" Mass would give them spiritual cooties.

I hold this as proof that these two positions are ridiculous and untenable:

* Fr. Cekada's position that a Catholic can't attend a Mass "una cuм" Pope Francis without sin
* Various other Sedes who hold that the 1962 Mass isn't "kosher" or legitimate to attend/use because Annibale Bugnini had his grimy mitts on it and/or they added St. Joseph to the Canon.

If either of these positions held water, then AT LEAST SOME sedevacantists should have known "the truth" and started Trad chapels before 1969 (when the Novus Ordo was released). Or did NO ONE hold the objective truth for a certain period of time? That would be ridiculous.

Obviously I cannot speak for anyone but myself. I have been a sedevacantist since the late 80's and yet while I am dogmatically a sede I have no authority or right to expect that of anyone else. I personally would not go to an una cuм Mass, and yet I do not believe it is sinful to do so for most. I just don't think your argument (or points) about any sede resistance as early as 1960 makes any sense at all to me. No offense intended Matthew.Folks attended the local parish masses until 1969 because they were still offering the Traditional mass until then. The hierarchy was still legitimate to the average parishioner and social changes had not come close to being pervasive. I assume you too realize this. It was not until the new mass was forced down the throats and the new theology was taught in the schools and by the priests that Catholics begun to stand up and take offense. This led to the discoveries of the errors and contradictions and then further to the blashemies eminating from Rome and the Popes themselves. The little non-Catholic nuances and then the bold heresies of false ecuмenism. It was a process. The splintered traditional groups (Shuchart, SPPX, independent chapels) are only a product born in response to what was obvious to many. The Church can't err and the Church is erring. Again none of these irregular groups, non-jurisdictional clerics, etc. is a solution to this crisis, it is just a matter of theological self defense. I see no way one could believe in ideffectibility or infallibility (in all its proscriptions) and maintain that the Vatican II Church is the Catholic Church. That Church errs continually, even in matters of faith and morals. That council erred. That Church contradicts itself. The new sacraments are doubtful at best and invalid at worst. The new church's "popes" err, teach error, blaspheme everything Holy. and on and on. I would lose my faith if it were demanded of me to submit to the Vatican II Church. Sedevacantism, I believe, is a logical defense to hold on to the truth as always taught and always believes. I am forced to leave the answers and solutions to God.