Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Matthew on November 12, 2025, 12:48:56 AM
-
Is because "sedevacantism" is divisive. It's adding a COMPLETELY UN-NECESSARY division to the world of Traditional Catholicism.
In other words, I'm not against individual "sedevacantists" for their opinion. Their opinion doesn't make me angry. The whole idea of "sedevacantism" as an identity DOES make me angry, however. "Traditional Catholic" should be enough. The idea that "sedevacantists" need to worship only with other "sedevacantists" at special "sedevacantist" chapels.
Every bit of good fruit I've observed over the past decades in the Traditional Movement can be 100% attributed to the core tenets of the Traditional Movement -- none of the fruit comes from declaring the See vacant, having a dart board with the Pope's face on it, etc. Sedevacantism hasn't been the solution; it hasn't solved the Crisis. It has been as impotent as the non-sedevacantists. I have no reason to hope for a solution to the Crisis to be found within the Sede camps.
Tenets of the Traditional Movement (what defines every Traditional Catholic from 1969 - present, worldwide):
- Complete rejection and aloofness from the Conciliar Church and the Novus Ordo, due to an unprecedented "Crisis in the Church"
- Seeking out traditionally trained and ordained priests/bishops
- for the pre-Vatican II (Tridentine) Mass and ALL the other sacraments, without scruple (about jurisdiction)
- without any concern about getting "permission" from the Modernists
These 4 points, and only these 4 points, were common to all Trads before Sedevacantism added a new "dogma". Now we have to have SedevacantistTraditionalCatholicSingles instead of just TraditionalCatholicSingles -- as if being a mere Trad somehow wasn't enough. Those duped into Sedevacantism are expected to attend special chapels apart from others, join specific Sede-focused groups, to be with specific KINDS of Trads who share your belief in that one doubtful OPINION touching on the mysterious Crisis in the Church.
That sectarianism, that unnecessary spirit of division, is the BIGGEST thing that keeps me many leagues away from Sedevacantism.
It's not every Sedevacantist that bothers me. Some of them aren't so sectarian; they will attend any Tridentine Mass (offered by a valid priest, etc.) But the whole milieu surrounding this particular "opinion" disgusts me. Just like a man who is tempted to sins against nature (because he was abused, etc.) incites only pity from me -- however, the "gαy lifestyle" that most gαys get involved in: the politics, marches, drug use, public debauchery, flamboyant display, in-your-face promotion of hedonism and degeneracy -- that whole milieu disgusts and angers me.
-
Good post.
I see bitterness and anger with these people.
Its very sad
-
I hold that Leo XIV is violently suspect of heresy.
I hold the Jorge Bergoglio was not pope.
I hold that the conciliar popes up to and including Benedict XVI were popes.
Do these make me a Sedevacantist?
-
I hold that Leo XIV is violently suspect of heresy.
I hold the Jorge Bergoglio was not pope.
I hold that the conciliar popes up to and including Benedict XVI were popes.
Do these make me a Sedevacantist?
Those are legitimate opinions you got there, son.
Where do you attend Mass? and would you attend Mass at an independent chapel (a Traditional Catholic a.k.a. "lifeboat" chapel) where the priest didn't share your particular opinions?
-
Those are legitimate opinions you got there, son.
Where do you attend Mass? and would you attend Mass at an independent chapel (a Traditional Catholic a.k.a. "lifeboat" chapel) where the priest didn't share your particular opinions?
I attend the Masses of Fr. David Hewko. He doesn't share my positions regarding Leo XIV and Jorge Bergoglio. He holds them as popes.
-
Is because "sedevacantism" is divisive. It's adding a COMPLETELY UN-NECESSARY division to the world of Traditional Catholicism.
In other words, I'm not against individual "sedevacantists" for their opinion. Their opinion doesn't make me angry. The whole idea of "sedevacantism" as an identity DOES make me angry, however. "Traditional Catholic" should be enough. The idea that "sedevacantists" need to worship only with other "sedevacantists" at special "sedevacantist" chapels.
Every bit of good fruit I've observed over the past decades in the Traditional Movement can be 100% attributed to the core tenets of the Traditional Movement -- none of the fruit comes from declaring the See vacant, having a dart board with the Pope's face on it, etc. Sedevacantism hasn't been the solution; it hasn't solved the Crisis. It has been as impotent as the non-sedevacantists. I have no reason to hope for a solution to the Crisis to be found within the Sede camps.
Tenets of the Traditional Movement (what defines every Traditional Catholic from 1969 - present, worldwide):
- Complete rejection and aloofness from the Conciliar Church and the Novus Ordo, due to an unprecedented "Crisis in the Church"
- Seeking out traditionally trained and ordained priests/bishops
- for the pre-Vatican II (Tridentine) Mass and ALL the other sacraments, without scruple (about jurisdiction)
- without any concern about getting "permission" from the Modernists
These 4 points, and only these 4 points, were common to all Trads before Sedevacantism added a new "dogma". Now we have to have SedevacantistTraditionalCatholicSingles instead of just TraditionalCatholicSingles -- as if being a mere Trad somehow wasn't enough. Those duped into Sedevacantism are expected to attend special chapels apart from others, join specific Sede-focused groups, to be with specific KINDS of Trads who share your belief in that one doubtful OPINION touching on the mysterious Crisis in the Church.
That sectarianism, that unnecessary spirit of division, is the BIGGEST thing that keeps me many leagues away from Sedevacantism.
It's not every Sedevacantist that bothers me. Some of them aren't so sectarian; they will attend any Tridentine Mass (offered by a valid priest, etc.) But the whole milieu surrounding this particular "opinion" disgusts me. Just like a man who is tempted to sins against nature (because he was abused, etc.) incites only pity from me -- however, the "gαy lifestyle" that most gαys get involved in: the politics, marches, drug use, public debauchery, flamboyant display, in-your-face promotion of hedonism and degeneracy -- that whole milieu disgusts and angers me.
Yes, and the laity crave for someone (a bishop/priest) to follow, naturally. I attend a Sede Church (necessity of sacraments) but hold your sentiments mentioned above. This is a talking point among a lot of my single guy buddies looking for trad women to marry. Can't tell you how many potential marriages were axed because of this.
It's pretty damning when you have a sede bishop saying the una cuм mass is a mortal sin to attend. I honestly don't understand this, and it makes me somewhat angry. What is the motive?
-
Yes- this is the only problem I have with certain Sede groups-
That they say a Resistance TLM Mass is is invalid because of "una-cuм".
They may have an option of saying it's illicit , but saying the entire Mass is invalid is really outside of their "wheelhouse" so to speak.
To me they have no authority to say a validly ordained Traditional priest is saying an invalid Tradition Mass because of naming "una cuм".
I don't like the una cuм either, but I will go to valid una cuм Masses with validly ordained priests.
Someone tell me where "una cuм" actually invalidates the Mass and where I can find this information, please.
-
Yes- this is the only problem I have with certain Sede groups-
That they say a Resistance TLM Mass is is invalid because of "una-cuм".
They may have an option of saying it's illicit , but saying the entire Mass is invalid is really outside of their "wheelhouse" so to speak.
To me they have no authority to say a validly ordained Traditional priest is saying an invalid Tradition Mass because of naming "una cuм".
I don't like the una cuм either, but I will go to valid una cuм Masses with validly ordained priests.
Someone tell me where "una cuм" actually invalidates the Mass and where I can find this information, please.
It doesn't, it's mainly Cekada's made up quasi-political bullshit.
-
It doesn't, it's mainly Cekada's made up quasi-political bullshit.
Well, actually it's Bishop Sanborn, too
-
It's pretty damning when you have a sede bishop saying the una cuм mass is a mortal sin to attend. I honestly don't understand this, and it makes me somewhat angry. What is the motive?
Here's one possible motive: $$$
-
Well, actually it's Bishop Sanborn, too
yea. sanborn as well. But these errors on their part in my opinion don't outweigh the bologna in the SSPX 2025. My 2 cents.
-
Yes- this is the only problem I have with certain Sede groups-
That they say a Resistance TLM Mass is is invalid because of "una-cuм".
Yes, Fr. Cekada's novel "Una cuм" idea is the poster boy for what I'm talking about. Actually the WORST example of what I'm complaining about here regarding the evils of the sedevacantist "movement" or "group".
With Fr. Cekada, you have sectarianism and division taken to the Nth degree. Fr. Cekada explicitly taught that other Masses weren't morally permissible/valid, so he had a captive market. He eliminated the competition -- not de facto or by accident, but EXPLICITLY and with his very words. He didn't beat around the bush.
Fr. Cekada was a shrewd businessman. Let's grant him that he was diabolically clever with his strategy.
Needless to say, his idea was novel and non-existent anywhere in the world of Tradition (including those of a "sede vacante" persuasion) before him.
Just like Luther originated "justification by Faith alone", Cekada originated the idea that Masses "una cuм Papa Nostro N." were sinful and/or invalid. Both of these men ripped off a chunk of the Church all to themselves, selfishly keeping them apart from the main body of (traditional) Catholics.
-
I understand the point of the author in your blurb, but it doesn't explain the justification why "sedevacantists" have to go off and have their own chapels, keep to themselves, avoid associating with non-sedevacantist Traditional Catholics, etc.
It's a conclusion, yes. But not an infallible dogma. It's a private opinion at best. You don't condemn or shun others for having a different opinion from you.
-
This is incorrect. Cekada, Sanborn and everybody else got it from Fr. Guérard des Lauriers (go look up his credentials).
Here's an explanation of the problem with assisting at una cuм masses by Fr. GdL himself:
The Vikings actually discovered America first. Luther got his idea for "Justification by Faith alone" while taking a dump.
No ideas are truly original. Everything is developed from earlier ideas, and earlier men.
So it doesn't matter that this idea has "intellectual roots" in various theologian(s) before him. The fact is that Fr. Cekada owned it, developed it, applied it practically, used it maliciously to HIS advantage and to the detriment of the Traditional Movement, and made it famous.
Virtually every discovery, every error you can point to, had a "seed" or "almost" version of it some years (decades, centuries) earlier. But it's still useful and practical to say that Ford "invented" the motor car, even though a few experimental horseless carriages existed before Ford. Ford is, practically speaking, the INVENTOR because he brought the "car" out here into the real world, practically speaking.
P.S. If anyone else said that "assisting at Una cuм Masses is sinful" besides Fr. Cekada, then THEY were idiots as well. Credentials? I'm sure Cardinal Prevost has an impressive educational background as well. And Jorge Bergoglio for that matter. Doesn't mean they aren't firmly in error, or that their education wasn't pointless in the end.
That is simply not what that sentence MEANS in the Canon. It does NOT mean "I am one with this pope, I am one with his sins, one with his errors..." That is INSANE. The pushers of the Una cuм nonsense are uneducated and don't know what the heck they're talking about.
Imagine if Catholics believed that during the bad old days when several Popes were quite debauched? Catholics would have needed to skip Mass for years on end, because they wouldn't want to be "one with" those Popes' sins and errors.
-
Una cuм-believing idiots probably think it's problematic to pray for Pope's Intentions during the last 50 years as well. They are drowning in ignorance.
-
Pope Benedict XIV, Ex quo primum tempore:
Emphasis mine.
EDIT: the quote above not only applies to the priest celebrating una cuм, but also to the faithful assisting at such a Mass ("Orate fratres ut meum ac vestrum sacrificium...").
The Sacrifice in question is the sacrifice of Christ Himself, not anything personal from the priest officiating. God is not offended when you unite yourself with the sacrifice being offered up by the Priest.
And yes, Catholics are pious and good for asserting their Catholicism, which (might I remind you) involves submission to the Pope. There's a name for those who cut themselves off from the Pope -- schismatics.
It seems strange now to acknowledge and submit to a Pope. But that is THE MOST CATHOLIC of attitudes. Bet that sounds strange at first, doesn't it? I suppose 62 years of "no Pope" will do that to you.
You see, that's another reason I would NEVER become sedevacantist. The whole point of the Traditional Movement is to KEEP THE FAITH during the Crisis in the Church. If I emerge from the Crisis with a punch-card full of hundreds of Tridentine Masses attended, but have completely lost my Catholic sense when it comes to needing a Pope -- what good was the whole lifeboat? If I end up dying immediately after leaving the lifeboat and going on shore?
I have to choose the *safest* and most *prudent* path during the Crisis -- the one that will see me still Catholic when it is all over. And based on the holiness of Abp Lefebvre, I'm going with his position. I'm willing to bet my endless eternity on it.
-
We've attracted a DOGMATIC SEDEVACANTIST and DOGMATIC HOME-ALONER here!
My real name: Rogelio Caballero.
My personal posture: Paul VI and his successors lack(ed) papal authority. NO orders must be considered invalid. A Mass where a false Pope is conmemorated is "tainted with sacrilege and the crime of capital schism" - Fr. Guérard des Lauriers. Episcopal consecrations without Apostolic mandate are an "offense against the unity of the Church" - Pope Pius XII, Ad Apostolorum Principis.
He thinks the whole Traditional Movement is not legitimate, because the various Trad bishops (+ABL, SSPX bishops, Sede bishops, etc.) didn't have Papal Mandate for their consecrations. See where this Una cuм nonsense leads?
The Traditional Movement is the answer. NOT staying at home for 60 years doing nothing but praying and waiting around for the Second Coming. We need Mass, we need the Sacraments.
The Catholic Faith is a habit of life. If you cease to practice the Catholic Faith, you will cease to be Catholic. It's simple. How can you stay Catholic without practicing your Faith for decades?
And don't give me that "Japanese Hidden Christians" nonsense. They were in VERY sad shape. They kept a faint memory of a couple basic dogmas (priestly celibacy, etc.) and not much more. I shudder to think how many of them lost their souls. Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer likes to quote the Hidden Christians because it goes well with his own Home Aloner agenda. The Hidden Christians are the "patron saint" of Home Aloners and Home Aloneism-promoters.
I have no respect OR devotion to these so-called "hidden Christians". Why would I? They weren't saints, they might have all gone to hell for all we know. We should NOT base our current actions on what these particular Japanese did, nor follow their path.
They used a Buddhist goddess statue, but secretly calling it Mary. But after centuries of using a Buddhist goddess statue, guess what happened? Many of them lost the Faith. THE FAITH IS A HABIT OF LIFE.
-
Here are your "hidden Christians". Read through to the end:
Approximately 30,000 secret Christians, some of whom had adopted these new ways of practicing Christianity, came out of hiding when religious freedom was re-established in 1873 after the Meiji Restoration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiji_Restoration). The Kakure Kirishitan became known as Mukashi Kirishitan (昔キリシタン), or 'ancient Christians', and emerged not only from traditional Christian areas in Kyushu, but also from other rural areas of Japan.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakure_Kirishitan#cite_note-enc-1)
Some Kakure Kirishitan did not rejoin the Catholic Church, and became known as the Hanare Kirishitan (離れキリシタン, 'separated Christians').[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakure_Kirishitan#cite_note-enc-1)[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakure_Kirishitan#cite_note-:0-3) Hanare Kirishitan are now primarily found in Urakami (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urakami) and on the Gotō Islands (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotō_Islands).[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakure_Kirishitan#cite_note-d-2)
In the early 1990s, anthropologist Christal Whelan discovered some Hanare Kirishitan still living on the Gotō Islands (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotō_Islands) where Kakure Kirishitan had once fled. There were only two surviving priests on the islands, both of whom were over 90, and they would not talk to each other. The few surviving laity had also reached old age, and some of them no longer had any priests from their lineage and prayed alone. Although these Hanare Kirishitan had a strong tradition of secrecy, they agreed to be filmed for Whelan's docuмentary Otaiya.[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakure_Kirishitan#cite_note-6)
The Kakure Kirishitan still exist today, forming "what is arguably a separate faith, barely recognizable as the creed imported in the mid-1500s by Catholic missionaries".[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakure_Kirishitan#cite_note-:0-3) In 2025, it was reported that there were less than 100 Hidden Christians left on the island of Ikitsuki in Nagasaki, down from 10,000 in the 1940s.[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakure_Kirishitan#cite_note-AP_news-7)
-
Yes- this is the only problem I have with certain Sede groups-
That they say a Resistance TLM Mass is is invalid because of "una-cuм".
They may have an option of saying it's illicit , but saying the entire Mass is invalid is really outside of their "wheelhouse" so to speak.
To me they have no authority to say a validly ordained Traditional priest is saying an invalid Tradition Mass because of naming "una cuм".
I don't like the una cuм either, but I will go to valid una cuм Masses with validly ordained priests.
Someone tell me where "una cuм" actually invalidates the Mass and where I can find this information, please.
Do you know the difference between illicit and invalid? I think you are confused.
-
One of the biggest differences I see between Sede trads and non-Sede trads (I'll include indult, here) is the Jєωιѕн/SOS red pill revelation. Ex., What they are behind, from the early days of the renaissance to now, the infiltration, and they correlation with Apocalypse and the crisis in the Church. I actually came into tradition by learning about the J's first. Just a thing to ponder.
Please realize 60-70 percent of all trads at sede chapels do not agree with Una-cuм stance. Trust me, they don't. The ones that are dogmatic sedes are the brown-nosers at Church (we know who they are) and A LOT of them came from Novus Ordo.
I think the Sede split is in 3 parts as of today:
Non-Una cuм Sede Dogmatics, (pick and choose pius XII changes, no talking to SSPX girls, etc., cliquey types)
Non-dogmatic sedes, which is most of sedes in 2025 (Believe heretics can't be pope, and would not lead faithful into perdition, are friendly to SSPX, etc.)
Non +Thuc line because of x,y,z (combination of both?, mostly SSPV)
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance)
-
I understand the point of the author in your blurb, but it doesn't explain the justification why "sedevacantists" have to go off and have their own chapels, keep to themselves, avoid associating with non-sedevacantist Traditional Catholics, etc.
It's a conclusion, yes. But not an infallible dogma. It's a private opinion at best. You don't condemn or shun others for having a different opinion from you.
It might start out as an opinion or theory, but it doesn't end there. Most often it morphs or evolves into an all necessary truth, a dogmatic certainty, even for priests and bishops who should know better - and are expected to know better.
I hope they are right.
-
From my observation, one cause of division is demonising the intentions of people with differing view points.
For example a non dogmatic sede accusing an sspxer of disagreeing with him because of dishonesty, pride, stubbornness or some other evil, and vice versa from sspxers to sedes.
When in reality they fail to consider that people may genuinely disagree with them in good faith. Some may disagree because they really see their argument as logically sound, whilst truly believing yours is irrational (even if they are wrong).
-
From my observation, one cause of division is demonising the intentions of people with differing view points.
For example a non dogmatic sede accusing an sspxer of disagreeing with him because of dishonesty, pride, stubbornness or some other evil, and vice versa from sspxers to sedes.
When in reality they fail to consider that people may genuinely disagree with them in good faith. Some may disagree because they really see their argument as logically sound, whilst truly believing yours is irrational (even if they are wrong).
This reminds me of how the FE/GE discussions go. Any dogmatic FE's here?
-
Do you know the difference between illicit and invalid? I think you are confused.
Of course I do-
illicit meaning breaking "the rules" of some particular authority- in this case Sede Bishops, without their permission;
and invalid meaning the Mass was sacramentally null and void.
Is this a test?
-
I attend the Masses of Fr. David Hewko. He doesn't share my positions regarding Leo XIV and Jorge Bergoglio. He holds them as popes.
I encourage you to avoid Fr. Hewko. (The elder).