J.L.,

You will excuse me for laughing out loud here.

St. Dominic's Chapel is independent, not approved by Rome, etc. If that isn't good enough, or we are considered "Indult" even though we have no permission from Rome and our priests are all ordained by +Lefebvre-line bishops, then please feel free to remove us from your SEDEVACANTIST directory.

We have no truck or communication with the Conciliar Church. We are not sedevacantist however. But we live practically as if Vatican II never happened. Unlike the neo-SSPX and all indult (approved by Rome) groups, we are completely aloof from the clerics and offices of the Conciliar Church. We pray for the Pope, and that's it.

And I hate to break it to you, but if you have a problem with being "Una cuм" the current pope, or you refer to Pope Francis as "Bergoglio", then you are MOST CERTAINLY SEDEVACANTIST. Why can't sedevacantists just be proud of their position? Is there something egging at their consciences? Why can't they just be open and honest, loud and proud, about it?

If a "recognize and resist" priest or chapel is not welcome in your directory, then we certainly aren't. You claim all your chapels are not sedevacantist -- but that is ridiculous! If only "non una cuм" chapels are welcome in your directory, then YES it is a sedevacantist directory. Why not be honest and label it as such?

Can you describe me just ONE hypothetical position or chapel which would not be una cuм the current pope, yet not be sedevacantist?

God bless,

Matthew




On 04/08/2018 09:03 AM, J.L. wrote:

Thank you for sending this information.  I see that St. Dominic’s chapel is served by several priests associated with Bishop Williamson’s “Resistance”:

Bishop Gerardo Zendejas
Fr. Edward MacDonald
Fr. Richard Voigt
Fr. Giacomo Ballini

The chapel website says:  "We choose to follow the first 261 popes, rather than the last 5!” My impression was that Bp. Zendejas and the other priests indicated are still “una cuм Bergoglio”.  I hope not, but could you tell me for sure?     Bishop Williamson has denounced sedevacantism, although it seems that a few “Resistance” priests disagree with him.

While the Mass centers listed in the Lux Vera Directory do not all label themselves as sedevacantist, they do not associate themselves in any way with the current Vatican II heretics.   So, I hope you can clarify this regarding St. Dominic’s Chapel, so I can be sure about listing it.

The latest Eleison Comments has some good points for this thread:

Anti-”Lefebvrist” Argument – I
Archbishop Lefebvre was wise – his rule of thumb,
“Recognise, yet Resist” is not so dumb!
To attack the French Dominican priests of Avrillé for their “Lefebvrism,” i.e. for their refusal to accept that the Conciliar Popes since Paul VI have not been Popes at all, a French layman – Mr. N.M. – has just written an article accusing the Dominicans of rejecting three Catholic dogmas: that the Pope has primacy of jurisdiction over the Universal Church; that the Church’s Universal Ordinary Magisterium is infallible; that it is the Church’s living Magisterium which determines what Catholics must believe. Normally such questions of doctrine may be best left to the experts in doctrine, but ours are not normal times. Today Catholics can have to rely on their own Catholic good sense to decide such questions for themselves.
Let us look at all three questions in a simple and practical way. If I want to accept that the Popes have been true Popes since Paul VI, why should I have to deny firstly that the Pope is head of the Church, secondly that the Church’s normal teaching is infallible and thirdly that the living Pope tells me what I should believe? Let us look at N.M.’s arguments, one by one.
As to the first point, NM quotes the thoroughly anti-liberal Council of Vatican I (1870–1871) to the effect that the Pope is the direct and immediate head of every diocese, every priest and every Catholic. If then like all Lefebvrists, I refuse to obey him, I am implicitly denying that he is my head as a Catholic, so I am denying that the Pope is what Vatican I defined him to be. Answer: I am not at all denying that the Conciliar Popes have the authority to command me as a Catholic, I am only saying that their Catholic authority does not include the authority to make me turn myself into a Protestant, as I will do if I follow their commands in line with Vatican II.
Secondly, NM argues that Vatican I also stated that the everyday teaching of Pope and bishops is in fallible . Now if ever we had serious teaching of Pope and Bishops together, it was at Vatican II. If then I refuse that teaching, I am implicitly denying that the Church’s Universal Ordinary Magisterium is infallible. Answer, no, I am not. I fully recognise that when a doctrine has been taught in the Church nearly everywhere, at all times and by all Popes and Bishops, it is infallible, but if it has been taught only
in modern times by the 20^th century Popes and Bishops of Vatican II, then it is contrary to what was taught by Popes and Bishops at all other times of the Church, and I do not consider myself bound to accept it. As I accept the heavyweight UOM of all time, so I reject the lightweight UOM of today, contradicting it.
Thirdly, NM argues that the true Pope has the living authority to tell me as a Catholic what I must today believe. If then I refuse to believe what the Conciliar Popes have told me to believe, I am rejecting their liv ing authority as arbiters of the Faith. Answer: no, I am not. I am using my eyes to read, and my God-given brain to judge, that what the Conciliar Popes tell me contradicts what all previous Popes back to St Peter tell me, and I prefer to follow the heavy weight of 261 Popes telling me what to believe against the light weight of six Conciliar Popes. “But then you are rejecting the living authority of the living Pope as arbiter of the Faith!” Only because I am following, obeying and submitting to 261 Popes as arbiters of that Faith which my eyes and my brain tell me that the Conciliar Popes are not following. “But then you are backing your own eyes and brain against the Catholic Pope!” God gave me eyes and a brain which function, and when I come before Him to be judged, I shall answer for the use I made of them.
It is clear that NM’s own answer to the problem of Popes protestantising, modernising and Conciliar, is to deny that they ever were Popes. It should be equally clear that to that problem, which is very real, I am not obliged to adopt NM’s drastic solution. Nor, if I refuse to adopt it, am I obliged to deny three Church dogmas. Peace be to NM.

Kyrie eleison.

I don't know, Matthew.  Bergoglio himself has told people, "Call me Jorge."  And I think that's why I started calling him Bergoglio.  I still refer to John Paul II as JP2 and Benedict XVI as B16, but Francis has just become Bergoglio in my mind.  Probably because of the "Call me Jorge" thing.  He doesn't want to be called a pope and doesn't want to act or talk like one.

I believe that Francis is at least materially the pope, but I tend to call him Bergoglio because I don't like to dignify his actions and words as being those of a Catholic pope.

Father Ringrose isn't technically a sedevacantist, but he's dropped Francis from the Canon.

I don't know, Matthew.  Bergoglio himself has told people, "Call me Jorge."  And I think that's why I started calling him Bergoglio.  I still refer to John Paul II as JP2 and Benedict XVI as B16, but Francis has just become Bergoglio in my mind.  Probably because of the "Call me Jorge" thing.  He doesn't want to be called a pope and doesn't want to act or talk like one.

I believe that Francis is at least materially the pope, but I tend to call him Bergoglio because I don't like to dignify his actions and words as being those of a Catholic pope.

Father Ringrose isn't technically a sedevacantist, but he's dropped Francis from the Canon.

I'd call "semantics!" on that one. I'm more of a "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, smells like a duck, looks like a duck, and successfully had ducklings with a duck of the opposite sex... then it is a duck!"

If it talks like a Sede, prays like a Sede, believes like a Sede... we have a name for that: a Sedevacantist.

Can a priest just choose on his own to NOT include the name of the POPE in the Canon? Without grave sin, I mean. The only way to get around this requirement, is to believe firmly that he's not the Pope. I don't see any third option.

Currently my position most resembles that articulated by Father Chazal and Father Ringrose, where I consider these men to legally be popes (and to have a certain amount of jurisdiction) but not to have papal authority.  So it's a case of he is pope and he isn't.  So I do reject the title sedevacantist for that reason.

Well then if he is Pope in any way, shape or form (materially, formally, technically, or any of that) then what's wrong with the ROUTINE inclusion of his name in the Canon?
Perhaps some of these priests need to LEARN what that inclusion means. It doesn't mean being one with his heresies, for example. It just means "I'm praying this Mass as part of the One True Church with the Pope at the head..." and so forth. There's no reason to not include his name unless you don't believe him to be the pope, along the lines of a Sedevacantist.

I'd call "semantics!" on that one. I'm more of a "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, smells like a duck, looks like a duck, and successfully had ducklings with a duck of the opposite sex... then it is a duck!"

If it talks like a Sede, prays like a Sede, believes like a Sede... we have a name for that: a Sedevacantist.

Can a priest just choose on his own to NOT include the name of the POPE in the Canon? Without grave sin, I mean. The only way to get around this requirement, is to believe firmly that he's not the Pope. I don't see any third option.

Well, that's the point of their position, the "third option" ... with this option being that he is the pope AND he isn't the pope.  And it's based on some very legitimate distinctions.  That's the entire foundation of the scholastic method, the old secundum quid.

SEDEPLENISM:  Francis is pope simpliciter.
SEDEVACANTISM:  Francis is not pope simpliciter.

THIRD OPTION(S):
SEDEPRIVATIONISM (or as Father Chazal called it "sedeimpoundism"):  Francis is the pope secundum quid.  Francis is not the pope secundum quid.

So I guess it depends on your particular understanding of why the Pope's name is in the Canon as to whether you would insert it there.  If you think that it's a mere legal acknowledgement, you could put it in.  If you consider it in the context of the Canon where it lists him among all the cultores fidei, then you might leave him out as definitely not being a fit for that particular accolade.

What I'm saying is that these priests must be tainted by Fr. Cekada's cooties.

Yeah, probably.  Father Cekada and Bishop Sanborn popularized this scrupulous notion (that even the Dimonds reject) that putting his name in the Canon is tantamount to declaring yourself to be in Communion with them and endorsing everything they stand for.

An update on the original post:

Dear Matthew,

Yes, I am most certainly “sedevacantist”, and yes, some chapels listed in the Lux Vera Directory declare themselves “sedevacantist”, and yes, some others listed in the LVD do not declare themselves “sedevacantist” - however, these last-mentioned do not speak of “Pope Francis” (so far as I can tell) - and using the label “sedevacantist” is not the deciding factor here.

Since I am not a theologian, I will not get into a discussion on the validity of those occupying the Chair of Peter since Vatican II or the position of “sedevacantism”.  There are more than enough articles on both sides of the topic by persons highly educated in theology and ecclesiology.  

But even with my limited knowledge, I can see the obvious contradiction and heresy in the “recognize and resist” position.  Catholics are obliged to obey the Pope, period.   If a Catholic recognizes a man as the Pope, then he excommunicates himself if he “resists” (euphemism for disobeys) that Pope.  

Of course, I believe that most sincere Catholics who adhere to the R&R position have not excommunicated themselves, since they are presumably only guilty of inculpable ignorance.  And I believe the same about many sincere Catholics who are blind members of the novus ordo anti-Church. Nonetheless, both positions are antithetical to the Lux Vera Directory.

"Catholics are obliged to obey the Pope, period."

This is the same error of the Conciliarists. You just take a different course of action than they. I hope you see that.

So the Pope's authority extends to making up a new religion? Asking us to all become protestants? I think not. St. Paul resisted St. Peter to the face and he didn't deny Peter's primacy, nor did he excommunicate himself.

You should consider the possibility that you are simply wrong about this.

St. Paul did say women should be silent in Church, and learn from their husbands. This crisis is hard enough for the men to figure out -- for women it seems 100X more confusing. They (and any funds they have) get preyed upon by opportunistic independent priests, various frauds who seem pious, predators who seem pious, etc. Women being more emotional is not an asset in such situations.

Also keep in mind that women usually outlive men. So if a woman was married to a successful man, she'll have a nice nest egg in her old age/widowhood -- again, for various predators to prey upon. I've seen it again and again in the Trad movement. Some priests know what to say, how to act, etc. to get the dough.

Sincerely,

Matthew