I'll try to justify quite this quite generally if I can. I think over the years a few critics of the SSPX have attempted to define practical sedevacantism in some way or another. I guess it is hard to pin down exactly. Also I'd like to say that I use SSPX here to mean actual SSPX members (i.e. their priests and religious) and those who attend SSPX Masses and support their arguments etc.
Practical sedevacantism, succinctly, is something like: making a point to admit that Benedict XVI is the Pope, but otherwise ignoring him as well as any and all of the non-SSPX Catholic Bishops of the world. I think this is broad enough and general enough, and to my mind seems to be exactly what is going on in many cases. It's almost as if the current Popes are hindrances to real Catholicism (which the SSPX have authority on); something like, "If only he were one of us and believed the things we did!" The SSPX doesn't always display this kind of thinking, but it does come up when people, for example, pit something the Pope has said (as Pope) against one theologian or one sentence of a previous magisterial teaching. It turns into a kind of "I refute it thus!" situation.
It should be pointed that the SSPX cannot be said to always refuse papal teaching, indeed they do praise the pope and parts of his teaching at times, on the other hand the Society has the right not to obey the Pope in certain circumstances as Bl Cardinal Newman expounded (and as I have quoted many times, probably ad nauseam merely because I can find nothing that explains the Society's position better) '
In support of what I have been saying, I refer to one or two weighty authorities:—
Cardinal Turrecremata says, "Although it clearly follows from the circumstance that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not ... it is said in the Acts of the Apostles, 'One ought to obey God rather than man:' therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands is to be passed over (despiciendus)."—Summ. de Eccl., pp. 47, 48.
Bellarmine, speaking of resisting the Pope, says, {243} "In order to resist and defend oneself no authority is required ... Therefore, as it is lawful to resist the Pope, if he assaulted a man's person, so it is lawful to resist him, if he assaulted souls, or troubled the state (turbanti rempublicam), and much more if he strove to destroy the Church. It is lawful, I say, to resist him, by not doing what he commands, and hindering the execution of his will."—De Rom. Pont., ii. 29.
Archbishop Kenrick says, "His power was given for edification, not for destruction. If he uses it from the love of domination (quod absit) scarcely will he meet with obedient populations."—Theolog. Moral., t. i. p. 158.' Letter to the Duke of NorfolkThe question then becomes not whether the Society can disobey the Holy Father, as it is admitted by a Doctor of the Church and several theologians of great weight that it can, but whether it is true that when the Society disobeys the Holy Father it is doing so because he is
'commanding something against holy scripture, the articles of faith, the truth of the sacraments, the commands of natural or divine law.. assaulting souls or striving to destroy the church'. That is the crux of the issue, speaking for myself I find it hard to say that much of recent papal teaching is not assaulting souls or against holy scripture and the articles of faith. It should be pointed out that by discussing these possibilities
all of the theologians and Bl Cardinal Newman himself accept that such things are possible. Now a key part of the argument you and others have made is that it is not possible for the Holy Father to promulgate something which will lead many souls to hell and yet it is evident that these authorities do not agree with this statement.
A short summary of why I think denying the validity of the NO or believing it is wrong to attend etc leads to sedevacantism is the following:
The NO was promulgated. A valid Pope cannot promulgate a Mass that demolishes the economy of grace for 98% of the Church who attend it. If it doesn't fulfill the obligation, or communicate grace, or is evil, then the Pope has promulgated and given the the Church a Mass that will lead many souls to hell --- and given it to them saying that the previous things are not true and that it is a valid Mass that gives grace. It just makes no sense. Either the person who promulgated that Mass is not the Pope; or you must accept that the Church has defected. I know there are ways out of it - but I personally don't buy these ways out, but I am not an expert on the matter. It just seems common sense to me that part of the promise to Peter included not giving something to the Church that is evil.
As I said a Doctor of the Church, the greatest British theologian of the last 200 years and other authorities of weight disagree with this statement. Further as I said on another thread 'Regarding the NO as Archbisbhop Lefebvre said
'Contra factum non fit argumentum. Against the facts there is no argument. The facts are there before our eyes. So, we have to conclude that when our Lord spoke of help until the end of time, he did not exclude periods of darkness and a time of Passion for his mystical Spouse' (Though he said it regarding popes and not the liturgy, it could as much be said about the liturgy as the Popes)'
I think we all understand papal power and it's limits. When you debate with people you must try believe that they know more than you, not less. It doesn't help anybody to just proclaim that "schismatic trajectory" as a phrase is meaningless because people (other than yourself) don't know as much about papal power. Schismatic trajectory certainly can be applied to the SSPX in some instances simply because they are very broad. For example: consecrating Bishops without Papal mandate. Whether or not you think this is justified in the SSPX situation - in the normal everyday operations of the Church this seems to be an act that fits the schismatic trajectory description. As does continuing to ordain priests despite irregular canonical status. One can argue back and forth about these things, but it seems that even the SSPX acknowledge that there exists a schismatic trajectory situation.
I would love to be able to agree that we all understand papal power and its limits, but I am afraid I cannot say so confidently. Underlying the arguments made for why the NO cannot be inherently flawed and sinful to attend is the idea that it is impossible for the popes to impose an evil on the church, therefore if something looks evil it actually isn't and we are simply mistaken, furthermore we are obliged by obedience to believe it is not evil. This it cannot be denied is an understanding of papal power and as therefore the SSPX and others disagree on this matter and as we cannot both be right, it is clear that there is a misunderstanding about papal power and its limits.
These are all red-herrings. Yes, it may be the case that there are others who are disobedient and liberal and heretical, that is not what we are discussing here. It's not any sort of counter to say "We don't fit the description because there are liberals doing liberal things!". As wrong as it may be, and I agree it is injustice, in most cases people/groups are not canonically irregular and so they are not in the same boat as the SSPX.
Not at all, people often make the argument that we cannot say the NO is wrong because '98% of the church....' well then should you not apply the same principle to your use of the word schismatic trajectory and practical sedevacantism? 98% of the church does it, therefore it can't be true...
The SSPX have Bishops. They have seminaries. They have priests. They have faithful. All outside of the canonical structures of the Church (the faithful not so much, though by the way many talk, it's almost as if they didn't care if they were). This is what is meant by schismatic trajectory; even if taken in the most general sense of saying "If they wanted to, they could officially split and have a valid Eucharist and form their own group outside the Church". Obviously the SSPX don't want to do this - but sometimes it isn't so obvious... especially if you speak to many who attend SSPX Masses.
Not at all, a study of ABL's writings and those of his successors make it quite clear that the SSPX is truly roman and thus truly united to Rome.
I agree! It's just a bit difficult right now isn't it - since I point out Church teaching that says the Novus Ordo is a valid Mass that fulfills the Sunday obligation and gives graces, and you say that I am wrong (and you will use Church teaching too I assume). I believe this is another example of 'soft sedevacantism' - in as much as I present Church teaching, and you will dismiss it as mere modernism and present something else. If I asked the Pope "Is the Novus Ordo wrong to attend? Will it give me graces? Can I attend it and be a good, faithful Catholic?" his response, going by the last 40 years, would be "It is good to attend it, it will give you graces and you must attend it." I would accept this view, and you would reject it. To me, I just cannot understand that. Not on the matter of the Mass. Not when 98% of Catholics worldwide are attending this Mass.
Then one has to determine what is truly church teaching, no easy task but nevertheless it must be done. Again it is insufficient to say that just because the Hierarchy of the Church say it, it is church teaching, this would lead to you accepting Communion in the Hand, altar girls, that the TLM was legitimately suppressed, ecumenicism and various other unacceptable doctrines.
