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...

Catholics in Political Life

One of the thorniest discussion topics among Catholics is politics. Politics is hands-off by many Catholics, especially around Cafeteria Catholics, who pick and choose their doctrine.

Catholics and Politics
This is strange to me, because the bishops of the United States are hands-on when it comes to political policy. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us we have a responsibility (read "sin not to exercise") our duties as citizens:

The Church, because of her commission and competence, is not to be confused in any way with the political community. She is both the sign and the safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person. "The Church respects and encourages the political freedom and responsibility of the citizen"(Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2245).

While it is generally a venial sin not to exercise our duty to vote, it can become a mortal sin when, with sufficient knowledge and full consent of the will, a person becomes a deciding vote in an election that has a moral issue at the center of it:

"Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1859).

 Despite many bishops speaking out about abortion being the most important issue in the 2008 elections, 53% of Catholics voted for Obama. Disregarding the informed opinion of a bishop is a lack of faith in Catholicism. We must give it due consideration.

Should We Discuss Politics Among Catholics?
It is our duty to inform and educate. Of course, we must do such according to our competencies (Christefidelis Laici, 62). Politics is often avoided. When I was studying Speech Communications, one of the key rules they said was "Do not discuss religion and politics at work or a Social."  We, however, have a different calling.

We must educate our fellow Catholics on doctrine, and how our faith should inform our voting habits. We should put Catholicism at the head of our list when choosing a candidate. In my opinion, no issue is more important in the upcoming election, except maybe the economy and possible bankruptcy of our Country.

The Persecution of Priests?

It is very difficult to discern what is exactly going on within American Catholicism today. We see many cases of popular priests within media having difficulties with their bishops. Fr. John Corapi, Fr. Frank Pravone, and outspoken priests within various dioceses such as Corpus Christi have been transferred, recalled or probably informally disciplined within their dioceses.  Either way these events have been very public contentions.

Are Priests Persecuted?
Foremost in my mind is the case of St. Padre Pio, whose was silenced for decades for alleged affair with a woman. It turned out that the bishop was actually the one who was having the affair. This was a grave injustice. I do not want to see a case like St. Pio happen again.

St. Pio's case shows that injustice against priests is not a new dynamic. If you look back into history even further, even St. Jerome was excommunicated, then later canonized. Abuse of power is not a new thing within Catholicism. It is ongoing today, especially by the hierarchy within Christ's Church.

The Case of Fr. Pavone
Fr. Frank Pavone, whose case is still ongoing, has been exonerated by his diocese, although the bishop is currently away. He was accused of not informing his bishop of the finances of Priests For Life, of which Pavone is the President. Even though Priests for Life is a Private Association of the Faithful, which has no accountability to Pavone's Bishop (Canon 321-326). While there are other restrictions on him, the important note to make is that bishops oversee Priests for Life, just not Pavone's ordinary.

Is Persecution of Priests on the Rise in the United States?
Diocesan priests take a vow of obedience to their bishop, while religious priests take a vow of obedience to their religious order superiors (Canon 573, §2). Therefore a religious priest does not need to obey a local bishop. This, however, does not prevent abuse by religious orders as has been the case with some Saints.

While some very public priests seem to have been persecuted, recently, I cannot say persecution of priests is on the rise. However, research should be conducted to examine if such is the case.

Perception Schmerception
We have an obligation to check our perceptions and discern the objective truth. I know from Psychology that perception is a tricky thing. A person cannot hear everything, yet many people think they can. This is why in law there is a process called due diligence: you have to give time and effort to research any undertaking in which you endeavor, before you take action.

Winging it does not cut it. Personal attacks do not cut it. Here is a case in point:

"I would venture to say that the supreme importance that he has attributed to his PFL ministry and the reductionist attitude toward the diocesan priesthood has inflated his ego with a sense of self-importance and self-determination." (Bishop Patrick Zurek).

Here is a thought for the bishop. Father Pavone is important. Priests for Life is one of the most successful ministries in the American Church today. His ministry with Priests for Life is becoming international in scope. Those are just the facts. Accept it and move on.

Humility is the virtue of accepting the truth about yourself, including the good. Father Pavone is important. Humility should tell him he is, although this does not call for braggery. It should also drive home his grave duty to finances and his other duties. He should also keep in mind that Christ is the source of all good works.

Yes, There is Persecution
The personal attack leveled by Bishop Zurek, constitutes persecution. Why do Catholics feel the need to engage in them, and not just stick to the facts? Father Pavone's spiritual state is between him, his spiritual director and his confessor. Unless Bishop Zurek is his spiritual director or confessor, he should be silent on this aspect of the case and remember the words of Saint Paul:

"It is the Lord who judges me” (1 Cor 4:3).

I think persecution could be tamped down if certain bishops would stop the personal attacks. Father Pavone has a right to defend his good name.  Stop attacking his good name, and things might go more smoothly.  Stop the persecution and personal attacks!  Just stick to the facts.