Why Sedevacantists Are Returning to the Novus Ordo?

via @engl1shtradcat (X)

Recently, some individuals have abandoned the sedevacantist position and returned to the Novus Ordo Church. This article seeks to explain this phenomenon by examining the general causes of error and then applying these principles to understand why former sedevacantists have defected.

I. Truth and Error

Before addressing the causes of error, we must first have a clear understanding of  truth and falsehood.

Truth is the conformity of the intellect to reality. For instance, when someone states that the sky is blue, this proposition is true because the intellect corresponds to the object.

Falsehood, on the other hand, is a false judgment of the intellect. If someone states that the sky is not blue or that it is red, the proposition is incorrect, for the intellect affirms or denies something contrary to objective reality.

II. The Causes of Error

Error has both logical and moral causes.

A. Logical Causes of Error

Logical errors originate from the natural weaknesses of our intellect, such as:

Hasty judgments: Forming conclusions without sufficient evidence or reflection.

Inattention: A lack of focus or concentration, preventing the intellect from apprehending reality.

Lack of memory: The inability to recall relevant facts or past experiences necessary for sound reasoning.

Ignorance: When the complexity of a concept, problem, or situation exceeds an individual’s cognitive capacity or knowledge.

The intellect is bound to assent only to what is evidently true, unless it is influenced by the will, which itself is moved by the passions. It follows, therefore, that in most cases error originates from moral causes.

B. Moral causes of Error

Moral errors, on the other hand, stem from the will, which desires the assent of the intellect on account of:

Pride: The unwillingness to admit error or accept truths that challenge their preconceived ideas and beliefs, and lead one to cling to false conclusions or reject evidence that contradicts their views.

Interest: The influence of personal gain, convenience, or ulterior motives leads individuals to rationalise falsehoods or avoid inconvenient realities.

Laziness: A lack of diligence or motivation to seek the truth.

III. The reasons for the defection of former sedevacantists.

In light of the principles outlined above, the defection of sedevacantists can generally be traced to the following intellectual or moral causes:

A. Rational or Logical Motives

Neo-novusordites often claim that their decision was made based on rational arguments, and not personal experiences. They argue that traditionalism would destroy the indefectibility, visibility, and apostolicity of the Catholic Church, so it cannot be true.

Thus, they are led to believe that the situation may not be so bad, and that we should accept the living magisterium of the Vatican II Church, seeking to understand heresy in the light of tradition and treating contradictions as a legitimate doctrinal development.

What are we to think of this approach?

These objections concerning indefectibility are valid. After all, we are bound to believe in a visible and hierarchical church, which cannot simply disappear from the face of the earth. There is only one institution claiming to be the True Church; therefore, it must be the Catholic Church, and the religion they preach is necessarily Catholicism, even if it may sound absurd, contradictory, and heretical, right?

This reasoning is flawed because it stems from:

Ignorance and Confirmation bias: Accepting evidence that appears to legitimise the Vatican II Church (e.g., claims of visibility or indefectibility) while disregarding contrary evidence demonstrating that it cannot be the true Catholic Church (such as heretical popes or evil disciplines).

Cognitive dissonance: Psychological discomfort arising from our inability to know certain facts (e.g., where the Hierarchy is),  often leading to rationalisation.

Appeal to authority: Trusting Novus Ordo clergy as legitimate pastors despite evidence to the contrary.

B. Moral reasons

Sedevacantism has nothing to offer but the cross, and it often entails social and personal sacrifices:

• Losing friends or family connections.
• Facing ostracism or ridicule.
• Limited access to the sacraments.
• Difficulty finding a spouse or community support.

Returning to the Novus Ordo, by contrast, appears far more attractive, as it offers:

• Easy access to sacraments.
• Social acceptance and integration.
• Even potential financial or professional advantages.

Humanly speaking, there is a lot to gain by becoming a novusordite. These incentives can influence the will to reject unpleasant truths and embrace convenient lies.

*****

As a consequence of original sin, our intellect and will remain vulnerable to error. For sedevacantists, the true danger lies not only in rational arguments but in the subtle seduction of comfort, fear, and pride. As Scripture warns: ‘Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour’ (1 Peter 5:8). Let us therefore remain vigilant and beseech God for the grace to resist every temptation to oppose the known true so that we may never be deceived by the seduction of a convenient but false path.

The Balamand Declaration (1993): Overview and Theological Critique

In this article, we examine the Balamand Declaration concerning the ecumenical dialogue between the post-Conciliar hierarchy and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and offer an analysis of certain erroneous propositions it contains.

Part I – Balamand Declaration (1993): An Overview

Formally titled Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for Full Communion, this report was issued in 1993 by the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to address ecumenical relations between the two communities.

This document outlines:

Three principles:

1.    Individuals have the freedom to follow their conscience.

2.    Eastern Catholic Churches have the right to exist.

3.    Uniatism is not the current method for achieving full communion.

It also presents two main conclusions:

1.    The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches are sister churches.

2.    Rebaptism should be avoided.

Document Structure

The report consists of a brief introduction (paragraphs 1–5), followed by two main sections:

I. Ecclesiological Principles (paragraphs 6–18)

• The division between the Churches of the East and West (6–9).
• The situation thus created resulted in tensions and oppositions (10–11).
• Uniatism can no longer be accepted either as a method to be followed or as a model of the unity our Churches are seeking (12).
• The Church as communion: The Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches recognise each other as Sister Churches. In the search for reestablishing unity, there is no question of converting people from one Church to another to ensure their salvation (13–15).
• Ecumenical dialogue: These churches should engage in a dialogue of love, mutual respect, reciprocal trust, and theological discussion with all practical implications. (16-18)

II. Practical Rules (paragraphs 19–36)

• Mutual respect between the Churches will increase to the extent that they observe the following practical rules (19–20).
• The first step is to put an end to everything that foments division, contempt, and hatred between the Churches. Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church no longer aims to have the faithful of one Church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytising among the Orthodox (21–22).
• Past persecutions and sufferings should not justify triumphalism. It is necessary that bishops and all those with pastoral responsibilities scrupulously respect the religious liberty of the faithful (23–25).
• It is necessary to seek and engage in open dialogue, primarily among those responsible for the Churches at the local level. All violence and every kind of pressure must be absolutely avoided so that freedom of conscience is respected (26–27).
• Faith in sacramental reality implies respect for the liturgical celebrations of the other Church. Bishops and priests have a duty before God to respect the authority given by the Holy Spirit to the bishops and priests of the other Church and therefore to avoid interfering in the spiritual life of the faithful of that Church (28–29).
• Special attention should be given to the preparation of future priests. Their education ought to be objectively positive with respect for the other Church (30).
• Christians must resolve their differences through fraternal dialogue (31).
• Joint re-evangelisation of the secular world (32–33).
• Commitment to theological dialogue (34–35).

Part II – A Critical Analysis of the Balamand Declaration

Proposition 1

Uniatism should be rejected as a method for seeking unity, as it contradicts the common tradition of our Churches. (Paragraph 2)

Pius XI explicitly taught that the return of dissidents is the only method of promoting Christian unity:

'The union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it.' (Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, n, 10)

Likewise, Pope Leo XIII earnestly hopes and desires that schismatics will return to the fold they have abandoned:

'First of all, then, We cast an affectionate look upon the East, from whence in the beginning came forth the salvation of the world.  Yes, and the yearning desire of Our heart bids us conceive and hope that the day is not far distant when the Eastern Churches, so illustrious in their ancient faith and glorious past, will return to the fold they have abandoned.  We hope it all the more, that the distance separating them from Us is not so great: nay, with some few exceptions, we agree so entirely on other heads that, in defense of the Catholic Faith, we often have recourse to reasons and testimony borrowed from the teaching, the Rites, and Customs of the East.' (Leo XIII, Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae)

Censure: Erroneous in theology.

Proposition 2

The division between the Churches of the East and West has never quenched the desire for unity wished by Christ; rather, it has often been an occasion for becoming more deeply conscious of the need to achieve it. (Paragraph 6)

Our Lord did not merely express a desire for unity that remains unfulfilled; He founded His Church as a visible society, permanently united in faith and government. Unity, being an essential mark of the Church, is not something to be achieved in the future, but is a reality that the Church already and perpetually possesses.

'And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches depends. For authors who favour this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: "That they all may be one.... And there shall be one fold and one shepherd," with this signification, however: that Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfilment. For they are of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not today exist. They consider that this unity may indeed be desired and that it may even be one day attained through the instrumentality of wills directed to a common end, but that meanwhile it can only be regarded as mere ideal. They add that the Church in itself, or of its nature, is divided into sections; that is to say, that it is made up of several churches or distinct communities, which still remain separate, and although having certain articles of doctrine in common, nevertheless disagree concerning the remainder; that these all enjoy the same rights; and that the Church was one and unique from, at the most, the apostolic age until the first Ecumenical Councils.' (Ibid. n. 7 )

Censure: Temerarious.

Proposition 3

The Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches recognise each other as Sister Churches, responsible together for maintaining the Church of God in fidelity to the divine purpose, most especially in what concerns unity. (Paragraph 14)

The Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Christ are one and the same thing (Cf. Pius XII, Humani Generis, n. 27)

'If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church - we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression "the Mystical Body of Christ" - an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Fathers. That the Church is a body is frequently asserted in the Sacred Scriptures. "Christ," says the Apostle, "is the Head of the Body of the Church." If the Church is a body, it must be an unbroken unity, according to those words of Paul: "Though many we are one body in Christ." But it is not enough that the Body of the Church should be an unbroken unity; it must also be something definite and perceptible to the senses as Our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum asserts: "the Church is visible because she is a body. Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely "pneumatological" as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are untied by an invisible bond.' (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, n. 13-14)

These Eastern schismatic sects are incapable of maintaining the Church of God in fidelity because:

They are outside the Church and therefore have no authority, jurisdiction, or mission within the Mystical Body of Christ (cf. Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, n. 15).

Their separation from the Apostolic See renders them objectively unable to fulfil the divine purpose entrusted to the Church.

Censure: Heretical.

Proposition 4

In the search for re-establishing unity, there is no question of converting people from one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation. (paragraph 15)

This proposition contradicts the dogma Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Schismatics must return to the Catholic Church in order to attain eternal salvation (at least by implicit desire):

'It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.' (Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, D. 714)

Censure: Heretical.

Proposition 5

Bishops and priests have the duty before God to respect the authority which the Holy Spirit has given to the bishops and priests of the other Church, and for that reason to avoid interfering in the spiritual life of the faithful of that Church. (Paragraph 29)

'No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.' (Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum , n. 15)

Schismatic bishops and priests are outside the Catholic Church and therefore do not possess any ecclesiastical authority.

This proposition denies the necessity of canonical mission:

'If anyone says that…those who have been neither rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority, but come from a different source, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments: let him be anathema.' (Council of Trent, sess. 23, can. 7; D. 960).

Censure: Heretical.

Domino Fidelis (Archidiacre) Exposed: Why His Anti-Sedevacantist Arguments Fail

Domino Fidelis, a Novus Ordo apologist and a rabid anti-sedevacantist, strives at all costs to label sedevacantism as heretical and to accuse its adherents of heresy, schism, and other grave sins such as rash judgment and deliberate falsehood.

On the surface, his arguments may appear convincing. However, a closer look reveals serious inconsistencies and numerous fallacies. In this article, I intend to expose his sophisms and refute two of his main arguments.

The main fallacies and tricks he employs are as follows:

Double standards:

Our petit Inquisiteur accuses sedevacantists of denying the dogma of the necessity of canonical mission. The objection is valid. However, the post-conciliar popes, whom he ardently defends, believe that schismatic bishops are legitimate pastors of the Church of Christ. Had he a real desire to combat heresies, he would attack them with the same zeal with which he attacks us. Would he do that? I don't think so. He's quite busy using doctrine as stones to be thrown at us, which is a sin according to his sect.

False dilemmas:

• Either you accept that John XXIII and Paul VI were legitimate, or you claim that the Church has ceased to exist. 

• Either you accept Vatican II, or the Church has defected.

Strawman of the sedevacantist position and unproven assumptions:

• Sedevacantists have rejected all bishops.

Misuse of Magisterial texts:

• For example, Leo XIII taught in Eximia Nos Laetitia that a group without bishops is outside the Church. (This is true, but distinctions must be made.)

FIRST ARGUMENT: Sedevacantism is impossible because it implies that all the bishops would have erred in their recognition of John XXIII, Paul VI, and Vatican II (1). Indeed, all bishops recognised them as legitimate, and the Church teaches that the whole hierarchy cannot err in matters of faith and morals. Thus, they are legitimate.

Sedevacantism implies that all bishops would have erred in their recognition of John XXIII, Paul VI, and Vatican II.

Sedevacantism asserts that certain papal claimants are not true popes due to heresy; it does not necessarily follow that all bishops have erred or could have erred. The Magisterium is protected from error in faith and morals. However, individual bishops, or even the majority apart from the pope, are not infallible and may err in contingent matters, including the recognition of a pope’s legitimacy. For example, during the Great Western Schism, many bishops were subject to an antipope, yet the Church did not defect.

Indeed, all bishops recognised them as legitimate.

Our opponent believes that, if a false pope is not denounced almost immediately following his election, any subsequent challenge to his legitimacy is invalid. But this is false. To claim that all bishops with ordinary jurisdiction recognised and submitted to Paul VI as their proximate rule of faith is historical revisionism. Monsignor Thuc declared the vacancy of the Apostolic See in 1982; subsequently, Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Mayer established parallel ecclesiastical structures and consecrated bishops in 1988.

The Church teaches that the whole hierarchy cannot err in matters of faith and morals.

The Church indeed teaches that the whole hierarchy cannot err in matters of faith and morals. The College of Bishops, when united with the Roman Pontiff, possesses the charism of infallibility. Individual bishops, even when considered collectively but apart from the Pope, are not infallible.

Bishops are infallible under the following conditions:

• When dispersed throughout the world and united with the Holy See.

• When assembled in an ecumenical council, exercising their supreme authority to define matters of faith or morals for the universal Church.

General councils, before confirmation by the Supreme Pontiff, are not infallible. Only ecumenical councils, once confirmed by the Pope, represent the universal Church and are assisted by the Holy Spirit; they are therefore infallible in matters of faith and morals (Denzinger 1723).

Conclusion: Thus, they are legitimate.

The Vatican II antipopes are NOT legitimate because:

• Individual bishops, or even the MAJORITY, can err in contingent matters.

• Some bishops and a significant portion of the faithful do not recognise or obey them as their proximate rule of faith. 

SECOND ARGUMENT: A Group Without Bishops Is Outside the Church

Domino accuses us of wilfully separating ourselves from the bishops: an unjust and hasty accusation. Sedevacantists would gladly give their lives, if necessary, to be in communion with the true hierarchy. He argues that without bishops, we would be schismatics:

As an example, Pope Leo XII, Pastoris Aeterni:

'Indeed, how can the Church be your mother if you do not have as fathers the shepherds of the Church, that is, the Bishops? And how could you boast of the name of Catholics if, separated from the centre of Catholicism, namely this Holy Apostolic See and the Supreme Pontiff, in whom God established the origin of unity, you break Catholic unity? The Catholic Church is one, neither torn nor divided; therefore, your so-called "Little Church" can have no connection whatsoever with the Catholic Church.'

Also, Leo XIII taught in Eximia Nos Laetitia that a group without bishops is outside the Church:

'Let them rely neither on the honesty of their morals nor on their fidelity to discipline, nor on their zeal to preserve the doctrine and stability of religion. Does not the apostle openly say that all this avails nothing without charity? Absolutely no bishop considers and governs them as his sheep. They must conclude from this, with certainty and evidence, that they are defectors from the fold of Christ.'

But let us ask: if the faithful, through no fault of their own, do not know who the lawful pastors are, does that make them schismatics?

Taken at face value, this argument implies that unless you can point to a bishop currently governing you, you are no longer Catholic.

This is a simplistic and dangerous claim,  which lacks both theological and historical support. 

In Mystici Corporis, Pius XII sets forth the conditions of membership:

'Only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptised and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.'

Theologian Fenton summarises it as follows:

In Mystici Corporis 22, Pius XII has set forth the conditions or factors which constitute a man as a member of the true Church of Jesus Christ. They are: 

(1) The possession of the baptismal character. 

(2) The profession of the true faith. 

(3) The profession of willingness to be subject to the legitimate authorities within the Church, and thus to be associated with the society of Our Lord’s disciples. 

(4)The fact of not having been excommunicated, in the full meaning of the term.

Schism consists in the voluntary separation from the legitimate authority, and not in mere ignorance or inability to identify lawful pastors. To be Catholic, one must be willing to submit to legitimate authority, but one is not obliged to know contingent facts.

Ad impossibilia nemo tenetur. No one is bound to the impossible. If the faithful cannot know who the lawful pastors are through no fault of their own, they cannot be justly accused of schism.

Consider the Japanese Catholics who lived for centuries without priests or sacraments. Shall we tell them: How can the Church be your mother, if you had not the shepherds of the Church as your fathers?

Let us turn to the Catholics of France in the days of terror. Let us imagine the exchange between Domino (D) and a Catholic (C):

D: Where is your hierarchy?

C: Our priests were exiled or executed.

D: But can you name one bishop who knows you and governs you as his sheep?

C: No. I have already told you that our priests were exiled or slain.

D: Then, by your own admission, you are a defector from the fold of Christ!

Does this seem reasonable and fair? Of course not! That is absurd and contrary to Catholic teaching!

Domino Fidelis’ case against sedevacantism does not withstand scrutiny. His arguments rely on false dilemmas, straw men, and a superficial reading of magisterial texts. The indefectibility of the Church does not mean that every bishop is incapable of error in prudential judgments or in recognising a claimant as pope. Likewise, the accusation that sedevacantists have separated themselves from the hierarchy fails, since schism does not consist in the inability to identify lawful pastors.

The True Interpretation of Religious Liberty in Dignitatis Humanae

The True Interpretation of Religious Liberty in Dignitatis Humanae  - Free download (PDF)

Vatican II and Religious Freedom: Negative or Positive Right?

Question

 I have a question: What is the authentic teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty? Some claim that it affirms a negative right rather than a positive one. Is that correct?

Answer

Dignitatis humanae teaches that 'all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.' (Paragraph 2)

Some have attempted to reconcile DH and Quanta Cura by making a distinction between:

• The right to do X – POSITIVE RIGHT (condemned in Quanta Cura)  

• The right not to be hindered from doing X – NEGATIVE RIGHT (as allegedly defined in DH).

However, this distinction is ultimately illusory, since the Magisterium has condemned the very notion of religious liberty as a right. Even a so-called negative right implies that civil authorities have no right to repress the public profession of false religions, except for reasons of public order. However, this contradicts Catholic teaching:

'…against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "the best condition of civil society is that in which no duty is attributed to the civil power of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except insofar as public peace may require".' (Pius IX, Quanta Cura, n. 3)

'Thus the two principles are clarified to which recourse must be had in concrete cases for the answer to the serious question concerning the attitude which the jurist, the statesman and the sovereign Catholic state is to adopt in consideration of the community of nations in regard to a formula of religious and moral toleration as described above. First: that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated. Secondly: failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good.' (Pius XII, Ci Riesce)

'[…] Wherefore, civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power and authority. Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness-namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engravers upon it. This religion, therefore, the rulers of the State must preserve and protect, if they would provide - as they should do - with prudence and usefulness for the good of the community. For public authority exists for the welfare of those whom it governs; and, although its proximate end is to lead men to the prosperity found in this life, yet, in so doing, it ought not to diminish, but rather to increase, man's capability of attaining to the supreme good in which his everlasting happiness consists: which never can be attained if religion be disregarded.' (Leo XIII, Libertas Praestantissimum, n. 21.)

Even if we concede that only the notion of religious liberty as a positive right contradicts Catholic teaching, it is evident that the post-conciliar popes have explicitly taught religious liberty as such.

'Religious freedom is the pinnacle of all other freedoms. It is a sacred and inalienable right. It includes on the individual and collective levels the freedom to follow one’s conscience in religious matters and, at the same time, freedom of worship. It includes the freedom to choose the religion which one judges to be true and to manifest one’s beliefs in public. It must be possible to profess and freely manifest one’s religion and its symbols without endangering one’s life and personal freedom. Religious freedom is rooted in the dignity of the person; it safeguards moral freedom and fosters mutual respect.' (Benedict XVI, Ecclesia in Medio Oriente, n. 26)

'The Synod Fathers spoke of the importance of respect for religious freedom, viewed as a fundamental human right. This includes ''the freedom to choose the religion which one judges to be true and to manifest one’s beliefs in public''.' ('Pope' Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, n. 255)