Sedevacantism

Sedevacantism is taken from the times between popes, where the "sede" (chair) is "vacante" (vacant). This means we have no pope. Based on the proported immorality of our times, the Sedes believe that there is no pope, because we have immorality among the hierarchy (bishops). This is an interesting theory, because Christ himself said of the Pharisees, the leaders of the time:

"Do whatever they tell you, but do not imitate them" (Matthew 23:2).

This means we have to obey, although the bishops themselves might not obey their own teaching (i.e. hypocrisy). Regardless of their hypocrisy, Jesus still said to obey them. This means they have authority, regardless of their state of holiness. Why?  Because of office is holy, even if the man occupying it is not.

Not Me, But What I Say
An often statement by hypocrites is "do what I say, not what I do."  This is a true saying, as far as it goes. We are to obey the lawful orders of someone above us, particularly in matters of diocesan discipline and policy, even of they themselves do not obey these orders themselves. Why?  Because we look not to them, but to their office. We look not to the man, but to the man-Christ.  It is his words where are our bond, not the hierarchy.

If you can follow this axiom, you will not be shaken by the faults of popes, bishops and clergy. But you will look elsewhere for examples of sanctity. My bishop does not have to be my spiritual director or confessor, but he is still the shepherd of my diocese, even if he is a horrible one.

Heresy
Sedes also accuse the pope of heresy. This is interesting since the pope determines of what heresy consists. They are much like dogs chasing their tails, when you step back:

"The pope taught heresy, yet the pope determines heresy, yet he taught heresy, but he is the supreme Pontiff."

Excuse me?  They affirm Catholic teaching while denying it? They state the immutability of the Mass, while denying the authority of the pope to determine the rite of the Mass.

They say the Tridentine Mass is immutable, because Pius V said so, but ignore the fact that the first Mass was likely in Hebrew, because it took place during the Jewish celebration of Passover? Well if the Mass has to be in Latin, Jesus violated this by having the first Mass in Hebrew.

The Mass
They say the words "for many" instead of the words "for all" are essential when stating of what the Mass consists. Actually, these words are a "novum" (new way of thinking). Because St. Paul is quite clear:

"Christ died for all..." (2 Cor 5:15).

and...

"[Christ Jesus] who gave himself for the redemption of all" (1 Tim 2:6).

It seems a moot point. The Church can emphasize the actualized redemption (prime justification) of those who are in a state of grace, or emphasize the first action of God (condign merit) in which Christ merited the redemption of all mankind. God brings about prime justification (justificatio prima) in which God is the first cause (prima causa) to move the soul toward justification.

Either presentation is valid. Either wording is valid. The Sedes seem to be splitting hairs in this regard.

Valid Popes
The Sedes also argue against the validity of the election of popes John XXIII and succeeding popes. They state these popes are heretics, therefore cannot be validly elected. The fact is, none of these popes taught heresy. In fact, in order to be a heretic you have to deny a dogma (summed up in the Nicene Creed). So which pope denied the divinity of Christ?

Invalid Arguments
Only a pope can determine who is a heretic. If you do not have a pope, who can determine that someone is a heretic? Church Councils! the Sedes argue. Yet Church Councils in the past have been overridden by popes. So how can you determine heresy without a pope, again?

Indefectibility
The dogma of indefectibility states, in summary, that the Church cannot fail to be a means of salvation to the world. She cannot (as a whole) defect in her mission to bring the Gospel to the world. Individual parts (parishes, dioceses) of the Church may defect, but the Church as a whole can never defect.

Who safeguards us from defection? The Pope.

The pope strengthens his brothers (Luke 22:32), has the power to bind and loosen by himself (Matt 16:18), and mission to feed and tend Christ's sheep (John 21:15-17). This means that in order not to defect, we need the pope. If we cannot elect a pope, then we have defected. If John XXIII was not a valid pope, all the cardinals who elected him are dead. Thus, there can never be a valid pope, since there is no one to elect him.

Nice try, Sedes.

In Closing
The real problem is the problem of evil. The problem of evils is stated as, "If there is an all-good God, how can evil exist [in the Church]."  The Sedes have no problem with the defection of Judas and his punishment, but somehow when it comes to the modern Church, there is a different standard.

Judas was an Apostle, and therefore had the authority to teach new Revelation. The pope is not an Apostle, therefore cannot teach new Revelation. Therefore, there is less offense to the failure of a bishop, than that of an Apostle. Even Peter failed in his mission when he denied Jesus three times. So what is the problem?

We will have bishops who fail in their duties, however the Gospel message is still spread. We will have times where heretics plagued the Church, like Arius, who denied the divinity of Christ. However, the Church keeps going on.

Perhaps the Sedes need to learn an old lesson over again:

"Let (weeds and wheat] grow together until harvest, then at harvest time I will say to the harvesters. "First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles for burning; but gather the wheat into my barn...if you pull up the weeds you might uproot the wheat along with them" (Matt 13:25 et. al.).

There will always be thistles among the wheat. They will grow together. They will be burned in due time. Do not let the weeds strangle you. If a bishop is not doing what he should, send your donations to Rome. You have to give to the mission of the Church, but the Church does not say in which way you must give.

Make your concerns known to your bishop. But dividing from the Church over non-essential words in the Mass? I think we can be grownups now, and not divide over the non-essentials.

The Essentials of the Mass
The words "This is my body," "This is my blood." Bread and wine. A validly ordained priest. The intention of the priest to confect the Eucharist. Not Latin, not the Tridentine Mass, not English, not the raising of the host (Jesus did not do any of these). None of these are essentials. Not standing, not kneeling (Jesus and his Apostles were reclining, by the way). None of these are essential, thus, none of the Sedes arguments are valid.

Special Note:  I removed ads from my webpage, as Google was feeding in advertisements for Mormons among other non-Catholic denominations. That is kinda weird for a Catholic blog...

Growing Secularism

In case you didn't know, Secularism is growing in the United States. The Pew Forum estimates it at about 12%. This means it has grown from under 1% in the 1990s to about 12% today. This is very disconcerting.

While Catholicism continues to grow, it also has a 76% approval rating among Evangelicals. This is while Evangelicalism continues to shrink. Only 20% of evangelical leaders think Catholics need to be converted. This is much lower from the times of the Westminster Confession, which called the pope the "antichrist."

Secularism
Secularism is divorcing religious life from public life. Even Christians may, wrongly, be secularists. Former Presidential candidate John Kerry is a prime example of a professed Catholic who is "privately against abortion" but would not vote against it.

An atheist is a secularist, he just divorces religion from public life altogether. He just wants to divorce other people's faith from public life, because he has no faith himself.

The Challenge
The Challenge is to convert secularists. How is this best accomplished?  Certainly science is foremost in secularists minds. From my experience, to be a Catholic apologist scientist, either a social scientist or physical scientist, often leaves secularists silent at our arguments. To be able to argue the scientific method and link it with examples from doctrines from the Catholic faith is invaluable.

I have converted a few atheists in my day, even though atheism is not my specialty. I continue to increase my knowledge of the physical sciences. However, a social scientist is not what an atheist expects. He expects a fundamentalist who hates science, not one who understands its methods. Knowledge of science is key to facing secularism down, and winning the culture to Christ.

The Sacraments and Prayer
Without the Sacraments and prayer, especially with the rosary, all our efforts are for naught. Grace must permeate our evangelical efforts. Prayer first, evangelism second is my axiom. Without the action of God, beseeched in prayer, there will be no evangelization.

Patience, Patience, Patience
Even for someone who has done evangelization for years, patience can be in short supply. It is important to limit your evangelization time. Every evangelist needs time for himself or herself. I limit my time to 2 hours a day, maximum. On some occassions I go on for 5 hours, but this is rare. We all need time for relaxation and play. Patience will grow, when self-care and self-nurture are part of our daily life.

Final Word
To overcome secularism, we need to start with first principles. God wants the salvation of all mankind (1 Tim 2:4). We must have a foundational trust in this. When we speak in a spirit of humility, good things follow. Even if the intended convert converts years later, we may plant that invincible and irreplaceable seed that was key their conversion.

Catholic Fantasy Fiction

I have heard many criticisms of Fantasy Fiction in Catholic circles. There have been many blogs about Harry Potter and other fiction being immoral because of the magic involved. Even the pope, prior to his papacy, has spoken on Harry Potter, concerned about young readers and that:

It is good, that you enlighten people about Harry Potter, because those are subtle seductions, which act unnoticed and by this deeply distort Christianity in the soul, before it can grow properly. 

Cardinal Ratzinger's concerns were correct. Having every wish fulfilled by the wave of a wand, is problematic for Christianity. There is no submission to the will of God in these acts. However, the courage and determination of Harry Potter to protect others shows the virtue of fortitude. So Harry Potter can be a mixed bag.

An important point to make, is that Pope Benedict has not spoken on the matter. Only Cardinal Ratzinger did. Thus the statements have no binding authority. They consist of a theological opinion, unless it can be shown that Pope John Paul II had approved the letters.

Full Disclosure
I am a Fantasy Fiction author. For those of you who do not know, I am the author of The Hammer of Justice, a fantasy novel with Catholic underpinnings (read deeply to see them, although some are more obvious). I have considered whether fantasy fiction is moral or not. It is very clear to me that it is, since it is fiction. If I were to portray it realistically, endorsing its practice, I would have failed. In fact, in my novel, I portray sorcerers as practicing evil and juxtapose good clerics against them.

Where I Draw the Line
I have a big problem with realistic magic, that was practiced by witches and sorcerers in that past, favorably portrayed. The Church has been clear about its condemnation of sorcery, and to even suggest that such practice is even morally neutral, is immoral in my book.

Thus Ex 22:18 condemned the sorceress to death without explanation. Lv 19:26 and 31 prohibited magic, astrology, necromancy and divination; Lv 20:27 added the calling up of spirits. Dt 18:10-11 summed this up by proscribing soothsayers, astrologers, magicians, sorcerers, charmers, those who summoned up ghosts or spirits and those who consulted the dead (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Christian Faith and Demonology).

Even J.R.R. Tolkien portrayed sorcerers as evil. The stronghold of Sauron, Dol Goldur (Hill of Sorcery), is described as a dark, evil stronghold. Sauron is, of course, the dark lord and archenemy of Lord of the Rings.

Tolkien, of course, is talked about on the Vatican website in a positive light. The challenge with sorcery is to make the word sorcery properly characterized as evil. What do you think?

Is Alabama's New Immigration Law an Immoral Law?

The New York Times would have you think so. However, the pope has already spoken on the matter:

Immigrants, moreover, have the duty to integrate into the host Country, respecting its laws and its national identity....States have the right to regulate migration flows and to defend their own frontiers, always guaranteeing the respect due to the dignity of each and every human person.

While he urges the bishops to support immigrants, he (see above) has also stated that nations have a right to defend their borders. For the simple, this is confusing, for the informed, it is clear. The pope is against illegal immigration. Keep in mind, he said defend the borders, not fling open the doors. However, as the Church has been clear, we should welcome the legal immigrants, while treating the illegal immigrants with dignity and respect while enforcing the law.

It is not surprising that the New York Times would support liberal, immoral actions regarding violators of the law. The pope, however, has a different view:

[Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things and foreigners....They obey established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws....So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.

 This includes our Christian brothers and sisters from Mexico. Respect for the boundaries of the United States needs to be ingrained in foreign nationals.

In truth, the pope did not need to say this. Respect for the law is ingrained in Catholics who have been in the Church for a while, except for heterodox Catholics.

What do conservative Catholics want?  We want Mexicans to change their own Country, not illegally migrate.

If the leaders are corrupt, change them. If the powerful are abusive, jail them. If the drug cartels are murderous, capture or slay them. Do the right thing. Christian love begins at home.

Sheep-Stealing?

There is a common saying amongst priests and religious today, that I first encountered in the 1990s. I was visiting the Paulist Community in Washington, D.C. when a priest there said that evangelization of Protestants was "sheep stealing."

I was taken aback by this saying and I did not know what to make of it.  Later in the car I thought something like "So Protestants are just another [valid] Christian Community who preach the truth?  All the talk of Protestants being in heresy is just overblown?"

I did not know what to think. Not having much theological education at the time, I did not have the arguments to refute it, except several so-called Catholic theologians opinions. Some were orthodox (correct) and some where heterodox (incorrect). This left me confused for a couple years, until I formally studied theology and understood the error. This confusion is the reason we must be careful what are the implications of our belief.  To say that we are "sheep stealing" is to imply that Protestant Communities are valid Christian Communities, with correct doctrine. This is not true.

There is No Such Thing as Sheep Stealing (Catholic vs. Protestant & Orthodox)
While there have been agreements between the Catholic Church and various Orthodox Communities not to proselytize, this does not infer that the Orthodox have 100% valid doctrine. These agreements are simply pastorally prudential decisions to allow dialogue between the two communities to take place in relative peace.

The Catholic Church is not validating all Orthodox Doctrine, including Papal Primacy and The Filioque (The Generation of The Holy Spirit within God) or Sola Scriptura. They are simply trying to keep the waters of discussion from the storms of upset that occur when an Orthodox or Catholic are converting to the converse faith.

This being said, evangelization is supposed to continue:

"For that reason, Saint Paul's words are now more relevant than ever: 'Preaching the Gospel is not a reason for me to boast; it is a necessity laid on me: woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel!' (1 Cor 9:16). This explains the Magisterium's particular attention to giving reasons for and supporting the evangelizing mission of the Church, above all in connection with the religious traditions of the world" (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dominus Iesus, 2).

While we are to respect other faiths, not forcing our views of people of faith (Dominus Iesus) we must present the truth, even to Christians:

"Today the Church must face other challenges and push forward to new frontiers, both in the initial mission ad gentes and in the new evangelization of those peoples who have already heard Christ proclaimed" (John Paul II, Redemptoris Mission, 30).

Are Non-Catholics in Heaven?
It runs counter to reason that anyone in Heaven is a non-Catholic.  The Church has been clear, dogmatically, that our Blessed Mother was assumed body and soul into Heaven (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2853). It has also been clear that Jesus Christ is God.  When we enter Heaven, we no longer believe. Belief, in a sense, is transformed into knowledge when we will see God "face to face" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #163).

So a muslim in Heaven continues to be muslim?  The Koran is clear that it teaches that Jesus is not God: "it is not consonant with the majesty of the Most Gracious that he should beget a son" (Koran, Surah 5:92). So, we only have former muslims in Heaven, not a current muslims. Why?  Because they behold the face of the Son, who is God. This is antithetical to Islamic doctrine.

While the Church is clear that persons of goodwill can enter Heaven. That is, persons who pursue the Truth to the best of their ability, and are in invincibly ignorance (have no chance to know better).  It is also clear that:

“Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved” (Vatican II, Paragraph #14, Lumen Gentium).

and...

 “...it is clear that it would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions...” (Dominus Iesus, Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith of the Catholic Church).

Is it not time that certain individuals killed relativism in their own hearts? Maybe what they might find is a flourishing desire for the conversion of others, not a condemnation of others as some might fear.

The danger for not embracing the truth of the Church, is committing the mortal sin of faith by belief in Relativism. Rather the way of righteousness requires a far holier path.

Government Persecution of Catholics

It is accepted amongst many scholars that persecution of Catholics is on the uprise. Archbishop Dolan of New York and William Lori, Bishop of Bridgeport, Connecticut give good examples.

What the Obama Administration is doing, seems intentional according to Archbishop Dolan. This, after Notre Dame allowed the President to speak on its campus. It seems wisdom is sometimes lacking in Catholics. We are not supposed to give pro-abortionists a platform from which to speak, which makes them look legitimate in Catholic eyes.

Christians Persecute Christians
Perhaps, some Christians do not know the commission that Christ gave us, to preach the Gospel "Preach the Gospel to all Nations" (Matthew 28:19). However, recently, many Christians have tried to silence other Christians from preaching the Gospel. While, for Catholics, this applies only within your field of competency according to Christefidelis Laici. Certainly, any informed Catholic may give a basic Catechesis.

In my experience, some Catholics are trying not to rock the boat, any have silenced other Catholics from preaching the faith. Most often, these are cafeteria Catholics who do not take their faith seriously. Perhaps, many of these Catholics are wanting to preserve their income, over the sake of the Gospel.

Certainly, the virtue of prudence demands that one give due consideration to a proper time, method and place to preach the Gospel as John Paul II had stated:

This phenomenon [of cultural sensitivity] implies a particularly sensitive response which is entrusted to your own judgement and pastoral prudence.

However, total silencing of the preaching of the Gospel, has nothing to do with prudence. Even Pope Benedict XVI has called us to evangelize:

"We cannot keep to ourselves the words of eternal life given to us in our encounter with Jesus Christ: they are meant for everyone, for every man and woman. ... It is our responsibility to pass on what, by God's grace, we ourselves have received" (Pope Benedict XVI, Verbum Domini, 2010).

Ongoing Persecution
More Christians have died in the Twentieth Century, due to persecution, than all centuries in the past combined. This often stated statistic seems overlooked by Catholics in the United States.  Some Christian Groups have called this the "Age of Martyrs." According to one set of statistics, 26 million Christians died in the 20th Century, compared to 14 million in all centuries before combined.

What would your answer be to deny your faith? Steve Centanni, of Fox News, was captured by Palenstinian Terrorists along with independent cameraman Olaf Wiig. As Olaf recounted it on Fox News, he told Centanni that the terrorists were planning to execute him if he did not take the Shihada, which is the muslim proclamation of faith.

Centanni stated:

We were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint, and don't get me wrong here, I have the highest respect for Islam, and learned a lot of very good things about it, but it was something we felt we had to do, because they had the guns, and we didn't know what the h**l was going on.

Centanni, if he was a Catholic, had an opportunity for matyrdom. He could have given an alternate Shihada instead of "There is one God and Muhammad is his prophet," he could have said:

There is one God, and He is Jesus Christ.

However, he did not. It is a sad dissappointment.

This just points to the loss of a sense of holiness in our culture and the growth of secularism. Certainly, sincere Catholics endeavor to be holy. I would hope they would all struggle to be Saints. However, persecution has only one true response: Saintliness.

However, there is someone who gave a different response. Mary of Egypt, "The Little Arab" was coerced to convert to Islam, but she refused. Her uncle wanted to marry her to a muslim. But Mary had a vision from the Blessed Virgin and would not go back on her promise. She suffered so much, in fact, that she was small from malnutrition. Mary, left her abusive uncle and worked for various families, eventually becoming a Discalced Carmelite Nun.  Mary, because her holy life, refused to convert to a false faith. Mary's uncle could have killed her, but she did not care. God was her all in all.

Today she is called St. Mary of Egypt. Several miracles are attributed to her. It all started by a simple refusal to submit to the coersion of muslims.

UPDATE
Bishop Aquila of North Dakota, stated that the Church may be persecuted in the future:

“We could see the possibility of it within the United States where we are no longer free to preach the truth from the pulpit or to present Catholic teaching."