A Sedevacantist Response from a Non-Sedevacantist

+

JMJ

Update: The author of the response has indicated that he is not sedevacantist.

I responded on Suscipe Domine to a question with the following:

Following the same level of doctrinal authority[Concerning Canonizations]:
We can be confident that Pope Francis is validly elected as Pope due to the universal acceptance by the Bishops.
Concerning the canonizations, only the aspect that the person canonized is enjoying the beatific vision is covered by infallibility.
P3

Which elicited the following response:

Bishops who, themselves, do not profess the Faith--a necessary condition of visible membership in the Church--by remaining in open communion with a condemned-in-principle Modernist program of reform, the Novus Ordo....
And this is the sure and certain body of faithful Catholics to which you appeal that can be counted on in the external forum to guarantee the security of universal acceptance necessary to establish with certitude that the man who leads this non-Catholic movement is, in fact, at the same time the head of the Catholic Church and the unquestionably certain Vicar of Christ?
I don't think that's quite the same as the "opinion held by theologians [that] is roughly the same level of authority as the doctrine that states that canonizations are infallible."

There are a number of issues in this reply ... first:

"... Do not profess the Faith  ... by remaining in open communion with a condemned-in-principle Modernist program of reform, the Novus Ordo...."

There are actually no less than three issues in the above statement.

First how does one "profess the Faith" - Well by reciting one of the Creeds - for example one like this:

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

PROFESSION OF FAITH

I, N., with firm faith believe and profess each and everything that is contained in the Symbol of faith, namely:
I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.
I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.
Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act. Source: Vatican

Funny, while some people may be ignorant of this fact, the Creed is still recited in Catholic Churches throughout the world.  This is how people profess the Faith, so surprisingly objectively even Cardinal Kasper 'professes' the Faith.  Whether or not he subjectively adheres to a heresy - he still objectively 'professes' the Faith and that is the problem with Modernists, they refuse to separate themselves from the Church preferring to corrupt Her from within.

Here's what the Council of Trent has to say about heretics:

For a person is not to be called a heretic as soon as he shall have offended in matters of faith; but he is a heretic who, having disregarded the authority of the Church, maintains impious opinions with pertinacity.(Catechism of the Council of Trent)

Now, I think it is safe to say that most Traditional Catholics know that objectively Cardinal Kasper has offended in matters of faith.  However, sadly, he has neither separated himself from the Church, nor been admonished by the only human judge who can do so: the Pope.

Since the topic was broached, just who is in the Church Militant?  Again referring to the Catechism of the Council of Trent we find:

The Church militant is composed of two classes of persons, the good and the bad, both professing the same faith and partaking of the same Sacraments, yet differing in their manner of life and morality.
The good are those who are linked together not only by the profession of the same faith, and the participation of the same Sacraments, but also by the spirit of grace and the bond of charity. Of these St. Paul says: The Lord knoweth who are his. Who they are that compose this class we also may remotely conjecture, but we can by no means pronounce with certainty. Hence Christ the Saviour does not speak of this portion of His Church when He refers us to the Church and commands us to hear and to obey her. As this part of the Church is unknown, how could we ascertain with certainty whose decision to recur to, whose authority to obey? 

So, as I've said to 'resistors', as long as men like Kasper occupy positions of authority within the Church, they are still to be obeyed when they issue legitimate commands (see obedience).  Truly it is an act of humility to obey a legitimate command issued by such prelates.

But although the Catholic faith uniformly and truly teaches that the good and the bad belong to the Church, yet the same faith declares that the condition of both is very different. The wicked are contained in the Church, as the chaff is mingled with the grain on the threshing floor, or as dead members sometimes remain attached to a living body.

The Catechism explains the classes of people excluded from the Church infidels, heretics, and excommunicates.  Concerning the 'heretics' please refer to the quotation above about heretics. Obviously there is a lot of dead heretical wood in the Church today and this will be sheared off in God's good time by either their separating themselves from the Church and/or an actual condemnation by the Church. Only then will human eyes be able to discern the true heretic from the true Catholic.

Until that time:

But with regard to the rest, however wicked and evil they may be, it is certain that they still belong to the Church: Of this the faithful are frequently to be reminded, in order to be convinced that, were even the lives of her ministers debased by crime, they are still within the Church, and therefore lose nothing of their power.

So what can we conclude according to Church Teaching?  The Bishops are still in the Church and retain their positions of authority and on issuing a legitimate command are to be obeyed.    Hard to swallow but Traditional Catholics are supposed to adhere to the Teachings of the Church.

Sucks to be us ... NOT!

Now how about the second proposition:

... by remaining in open communion with a condemned-in-principle Modernist program of reform, the Novus Ordo...."

This is an illogical statement because one is not in 'communion' with a principle.  One either adhere's to it or one does not.  

Concerning the 'principle', it would be necessary to demonstrate that the principle is heretical in the first degree and secondly that the person(s) in question adhere to it with pertinacity.  Modernism isn't some vague belief, it is a system and there are a number of clear anathemas attached to it (see Lamentabili Sane).  

Assuming that the commentator meant that the Novus Ordo 'etc' contains explicit heresy - I'd like him/her to provide proof of this - because it would contravene the doctrine of Indefectibility of the Church:

As to moral precepts or laws as distinct from moral doctrine, infallibility goes no farther than to protect the Church against passing universal laws which in principle would be immoral. It would be out of place to speak of infallibility in connection with the opportuneness or the administration of necessarily changing disciplinary laws although, of course, Catholics believe that the Church receives appropriate Divine guidance in this and in similar matters where practical spiritual wisdom is required. (Toner, 1910)

So if the Novus Ordo, Vatican II, etc have explicit heresy - then we have more than just a little problem about who's the Pope and an errant heretical hierarchy.  This means that Our Lord Jesus Christ was wrong about the gates of Hell.

The third issue is an over-arching problem with the sense of the whole statement. If you take the principles espoused to their logical conclusion you would be forced to conclude that all Novus Ordo Catholics are outside the Church because they are '... in open communion with a condemned-in-principle Modernist program of reform, the Novus Ordo."

This is a serious problem because it begets schism.

There are Four Marks of the Church and the Pope is one half of the Mark of Unity.  So the resistance just needs to give their head a shake and get over it.  If you're Catholic, then you are in communion with Pope Francis - end of question. To refuse communion with the Pope is to fall into schism, which is to be outside the Church.

As noted earlier, this opinion contravenes the doctrine of indefectibility.

Funny how in order to support the a position it is necessary to cast into the bin the doctrines of the Church.

This is an obvious sign that it is not following the Church and therefore has fallen off the knife's edge that Archbishop Lefebvre walked his entire life.

P^3